Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SWP273658(6)
�zaear°. U.S.DEPARTMEENIT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Special Applications Center 64s.,,of��°` 77 W.Jackson Blvd.,Room 2401 Chicago,Illinois 60604-3507 Phone: (312)353-6236 Fax: (312)886-6413 OFFICE OF PUBLIC HOUSING APR 0 8 20141. Mr.Mark Gropper Executive Director Renton Housing Authority 2900 NE IOth Street Renton,WA 98056-0316 Dear Mr. Gropper: The Department has reviewed the Renton Housing Authority's (RHA) application for the disposition of 1 non-dwelling, 22 dwelling buildings containing 84 units and 6.4 acres of underlying land at Sunset Terrace,WA011000001. The Special Applications Center(SAC) received this application on January 29, 2014 via the Public and Indian Housing Information Center(PIC),Application DDA0005400. Supplemental information was received through March 14, 2014. FO and FHEO Certification The Environmental Assessment was performed by the City of Renton under 24 CFR Part 58 on May 9,2011, and was signed off on by the Seattle HUB on June 8, 2011. The Seattle HUB provided a certification stating that the submission accurately describes the current physical condition of the project prbposed for demolition, and that the reasons provided by the Renton Housing Authority(RHA) to justify the proposed action are correct and factual. Under 24 CFR§ 970.7(a)(1),in order for a demolition or disposition application to be approved after November 24, 2006, the effective date of this regulation, a Public Housing Agency(PHA) must provide"A certification that the PHA has described the demolition or disposition in the PHA Annual Plan and timetable under 24 CFR Part 903, and that the description in the PHA Annual Plan is identical to the application submitted pursuant to this part and otherwise complies with Section 18 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1437p) and this part." The Seattle HUB approved the RHA's agency plan on October 20, 2013, which includes the subject action. On March 27, 2014,the Seattle Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Center(FHE'19), Program Compliance Branch,recommended the demolition approval. An advance draft o this approval letter was sent to the RHA for their comments on March 27,2014. The RHA responded with comments on March 31, 2014. An advance draft was sent to the Seattle HUB for their comments on March 27,2014, and a response was received on March 27, 2014. Visit our World Wide Web Site http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/centers/sac/ 2 Description of Development The RHA proposed the disposition of 1 non-dwelling building, 22 dwelling buildings containing 84 units and 6.4 acres of underlying land at Sunset Terrace, WA0 1 1 00000 1. Details of the proposed demolition are as follows: Sunset Terrace,WA011000001-Phase II DOFA:02/28/1960 Bedroom Size 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4+BR Total Existing Units 20 36 36 8 100 Proposed Units 20 28 32 4 84 Number of Dwelling Buildings Existing 26 Number of Dwelling Buildings Proposed 22 Number of Non-Dwelling without PIC Number Existing 3 Number of Non-Dwelling without PIC Number Proposed 1 Number of(Dwelling and Non-Dwelling)ACC Units in 238 PHA's Total Housins Inventory for All Developments Address of Non-Dwelling Building 970 Harrington NE,Renton,WA 98056 History of the Development The RHA has received the following Inventory Removal approval at the development: PIC Removal Type Number of Number of Application Units Acres Date of Approval Approved Approved DDA0004431 Disposition—Phase I I6 0.91 February 1,2012 Reason for Action (Justification) -Disposition The RHA proposed the disposition based on 24 CFR § 970.17, which requires the PHA to certify that the retention of the property is not in the best interests of the residents or the PHA because the PHA has otherwise determined the disposition to be appropriate for reasons that are consistent with the goals of the PHA and the PHA Plan and that are otherwise consistent with the Act. The RHA proposes disposition of 1 non-dwelling building, 22 dwelling buildings containing 84 units and 6.4 acres of underlying land at Sunset Terrace,WA011000001 to: (1) Colpitts Development Co., LLC via a negotiated sale at fair market value(FMV)for$2,270,000, a total of 2.5 acres; (2) the City of Renton via negotiated sale (transfer/exchange property) at FMV for$2,640,000, a total of 3.5 acres; and(3) the 0.4 acres of land retained by the RHA, valued at$600,000, will be for the 40 new subsidized low-income replacement housing units. The building name,in which the 40 units will be housed, is referred by the RHA as`Building 5". The disposition will enable a multi-phased mixed finance, mixed-income development being planned for the surrounding area. The current phase will result in the construction of 296 3 market-rate units by Colpitts Development Co., LLC,the City of Renton will construction of a new park and a regional storm-water facility which will enhance the neighborhood and provide a community amenity to the residents of the Sunset Terrace. The RHA will build some of the replacement units across from the new public park and on the land currently occupied by the City of Renton's park. The City owned park sits one block north of Sunset Terrace and is now zoned to accommodate up to 15 town-homes (Sunset Court Park), of which the RHA will build some other replacement housing units. Also, the RHA will construct 40 new affordable low-income housing units and some additional affordable units. The development will be financed with low- income housing tax credits (LIHTC) and transferred to a new ownership partnership, of which the RHA will be the general partner. We concur with the RHA's determination that the disposition is in the best interests of the residents or the PHA because enables the construction of new affordable low-income housing and replacement units. Appraisal The RHA submitted an appraisal with the application. The Valbridge Property Advisors, an independent appraiser, determined the Fair Market Value (FMV) for the overall site to be $5,244,000, as of March 5, 2014. The appraised value of the 0.4 acres of land, to be acquired by the RHA is $600,000. Method of Sale Of the 6.4 acres of underlying land, the RHA proposed 2.5 acres to Colpitts Development Co. via public bid at FMV or higher, 3.5 acres to the City of Renton via negotiated sale at FMV (transfer with property exchange); and 0.4 acres retained by the RHA. Use of Proceeds According to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, there is no outstanding debt on Sunset Terrace, WA011000001. The RHA will realize net proceeds from this disposition. In the application, the RHA proposes to allocate a portion of the 55,244,000 proceeds to support the development and construction of no fewer than 84 units that will used exclusively as project- based or tenant-based Section 8 units and marketed to, reserved for, and occupied solely by eligible residents under the Section 8 program for a period not less than 30years. Any net proceeds not used of this purpose shall be eligible for recapture by RHA. If any proceeds are repaid to or recaptured by RHA, these proceeds will be federalized assets subject to all federal requirements. In addition, the RHA will use the proceeds for the development and/or acquisition of new ACC units; and/or leveraging for the purpose of developing mixed-finance housing that will include ACC units under 24 CFR 905 Subpart F. We have determined that use of proceeds meets the requirements of the statute. Also,the approval requires that a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants &Lien (or other acceptable documentation) be executed and recorded against the property on which the Section 8 units are developed that ensures that the proceeds will be used for 30 years according to the use approved in this letter, or the proceeds must be repaid to the RHA (or its successors and/or assigns). 4 Relocation When the application was developed and transmitted to the Department,75 of the 84 units proposed for disposition were occupied. The RHA has submitted a certification regarding relocation as required by 24 CFR § 970.21(e) (f). The RHA estimated the relocation cost for the remaining residents to be $236,250, which includes moving expenses and counseling/advisory services. The funds for relocation are allocated under FY 2012 CFFP. The housing resources offered will be other public housing and housing choice vouchers. Resident Consultation 1. Project Specific Resident Organization: None 2. PHA-wide Resident Organization: None 3. Resident Advisory Board (RAB) in accordance with 24 CFR § 903.13: None 24 CFR § 970.9 requires that an application for disposition be developed in consultation with the tenants of the project involved, any tenant organization at the project involved and any PHA-wide organizations that will be affected by the activity. The RHA met with the residents on January 4, 2011,May 31,2011, February 26, 2013 and June 23, 2013. The RHA has included sign-in sheets from the meetings in its application package. The RHA has tried to form a RAB, a letter dated August 26, 2011, was sent to residents to help the RHA create a RAB,but no residents were interested. In addition, at the meeting held June 23,2013, the RHA emphasized the right and the prerogative of the residents to form a resident group and an opportunity to purchase the remaining Sunset Terrace development and to a form a resident group. There was no interest by the residents in the purchase of Sunset Terrace or forming a resident group. The RHA included the agendas and sign-in sheets for the meetings in it application package. 24 CFR § 970.9(a) requires submission of any written comments, and the HA's evaluation of the written comments with the application package. The RHA did receive written comments from the residents concerning relocation. The RHA assured the residents their concerns will be addressed to the best of the RHA's ability. Offer for Sale to the Resident Organization 24 CFR § 970.9(b) (1) of the regulation requires that a public housing agency offer the opportunity to purchase the property proposed for disposition to any eligible resident organization,eligible resident management corporation as defined in 24 CFR Part 964, or to a nonprofit organization acting on behalf of the residents, if the resident entity has expressed an interest in purchasing the property for continued use as low-income housing. Since the RHA is not aware of any resident entity that has expressed an interest in purchasing the property, we determined that the RHA has complied with the requirements of 24 CFR § 970.9(b) (1). 5 Mayor/Local Government Consultation As required by 24 CFR § 970.7(a) (14),the application package includes a letter of support from the Honorable Denis Law,Mayor of the City of Renton, dated July 8, 2011. Board Resolution As required by the 24 CFR § 970.7(a) (13), the RHA's Board of Commissioners approved the submission of the application for disposition of the proposed property on January 13, 2014, via Resolution Number 2449-2014. The last resident consultation was on February 26, 2013. The consultation with the local government took place on June 14,2011. Replacement Housing 24 CFR § 970.31 eliminated the requirement for one-for-one replacement of public housing units. Therefore,the RHA is not required to provide for replacement housing, and the Department is under no obligation to fund replacement housing. Other Requirements Please remind the RHA that pursuant to 24 CFR § 970.21(c)(2), if any of the following types of federal financial assistance is used in connection with the disposition of public housing, the project is subject to section 104(d) of the Housing and'Community Development Act of 1974,42 U.S.C. 5304(d) (as amended), including the relocation payment provisions and the anti- displacement provisions, which require that comparable replacement dwellings be provided within the community for the same number of occupants as could have been housed in the occupied and vacant, occupiable low- and moderate-income units converted to another use: • Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) program,42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq. (including loan guarantees under section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974,42 U.S.C. 5308 et seq.); • Urban Development Action Grant(UDAG)program,42 U.S.C. 5318 et seq.; or • HOME program, 42 U.S.C. 12701 et seq. Please contact the HUD Seattle HUB for additional guidance, if applicable. Approval We have reviewed the application and find it to be consistent with Section 18 of the Act, and the implementing regulations,24 CFR Part 970, including requirements related to resident consultation,relocation and opportunity to purchase the property by the resident organization. Based upon our review, and finding that the requirements of 24 CFR Part 970 and Section 18 of the Act have been met, the disposition of 1 non-dwelling building, 22 residential buildings containing 84 units and 6.4 acres of underlying land at Sunset Terrace,WA011000001, as previously identified and described in the application, at the FMV of$5,244,000, or higher, via a negotiated sale, is hereby approved. If the RHA fails to receive the FMV,please inform this 6 office as to the RHA plans. The use of proceeds for development and construction of 84 units, exclusively used as project-based or tenant based Section 8 units,is also approved. Sunset Terrace,WA011000001 Approved for Disposition: Non-Residential Building: 1, Residential Buildings:22,Units:84 and Acres:6.4 Acquiring Entity Col itts Development Co.,LLC Method of Sale Negotiated Sale at FMV Acreage 2.5 Sale Price $2,270,000 Purpose Development of 296 market rate privately- ' F III x. owned housing units Acquiring Entity City of Renton Method of Sale Negotiated Sale at FMV (Transfer with property exchange) Acreage 3.5 Sale Price $2,640,000 Purpose Development of a new public park and a underground regional storm-water facility ME<, Acquiring Entity RHA Method of Sale Retention by the RHA Acreage 0.4 Land Value $600,000 Purpose Development of 40 new subsidized low- income replacement housing units(referred to as Bldg.5). NOTE:On the land continuous to Sunset Terrace and near the existing units,the RHA will develop the balance of its Sunset Terrace replacement housing—plus an approximate 200 additional affordable low-income housing units.RHA will replace each of the 100 Sunset Terrace units(by BR count),and has begun doing so with the construction of einht 4 BR Glennwood Townhomes units on RHA land adjacent to Sunset Terrace,and the 18 family housing units in the Kirkland Avenue Townhomes,0.46 miles to the northeast of Sunset. Notwithstanding this approval,the PHA shall not proceed to enter into any long-term around lease or disposition agreement until all residents have been relocated and until all demolition actions at the development(that were previously approved by HUD) are complete. 7 Operating Subsidy Please be aware that in accordance with 24 CFR § 990.114, the disposition of these units will affect the RHA's operating subsidy eligibility significantly. Please contact your financial analyst at the HUD Seattle for additional guidance about this. The Seattle HUB must insure that the RHA's annual formula characteristics report is updated properly to reflect these changes. Housing Choice Vouchers If you are interested in applying for housing choice vouchers in connection with the units approved for disposition, it will need to submit an application to the Seattle HUB. The RHA should submit its application in response to HUD Notice 2013-12, or HUD's current Notice outlining the application procedures. PIC and Monitoring In accordance with 24 CFR § 970.35 of the regulation, your agency is required to inform the HUD Seattle HUB of the status of the project(i.e., delays, actual disposition or other problems). When the disposition has been achieved,please submit a report to the HUD Seattle HUB confirming the action and certifying compliance with all applicable requirements. Files must be maintained which are sufficient for audit purposes and must be made available upon request. The RHA must enter the"actual"dates of disposition directly into the Inventory Removals sub-module in PIC,for the Seattle HUB approval so that the status of the units in PIC is changed to "removed from inventory." For land, the disposition dates and number of acres should also be recorded by the RHA in the Inventory Removals sub-module. It is the Seattle HUB's responsibility to monitor this activity based on its latest risk assessment. The RHA is responsible for reporting accurate occupancy and building/unit information via communication with the Seattle HUB and through reporting in HUD systems. The Seattle HUB must verify that the actual data is being entered in PIC by the RHA as the actions occur to ensure the Department is not over paying in operating subsidy, and the Capital Fund formula data is correct. Since this action expects to generate net proceeds of$5,244,000, it is the Seattle HUB's responsibility to verify the funds were used as approved, and the RHA's records are adequately documented to support this assertion. The RHA should work with the Seattle HUB to close this program out seamlessly. The HUD Seattle HUB has been informed of this approval. Its staff is available to provide any technical assistance necessary for your agency to proceed with the disposition. 8 As the RHA start the process of implementation, I urge you to continue to maintain an open dialogue with your residents and local officials. If you have to modify your plans,the HUD Seattle HUB stands ready to assist you. Sincerely, Tamara S. Gray Director Cc: Seattle HUB AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: Dept. of Housing and Urban DevelopmentC"" 'l Attn: Ryan Mielcarek 909 I't Avenue, Suite 360 l� Seattle, WA 98104 PARTIAL RELEASE AND AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF TRUST Grantor(s): Housing Authority of the City of Renton Grantee(s): Department of Housing and Urban Development Abbreviated Legal Ptn Blk 35 & 35A, Corrected Renton Highlands 2, Vol 57/92-98 Description: Full legal description is located on page(s) Assessor's Property Tax 722780-1085-01 and 722780-1055-07 Parcel/Account Number(s): This Amendment to Declaration of Trust is made and entered into this day of , 2014, by and between the Housing Authority of the City of Renton (the "Local Authority"), a public body corporate and politic, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). RECITALS WHEREAS, pursuant to an Annual Contributions Contract dated June 27, 1958, the Local Authority executed a Declaration of Trust for Project No. WASH 1-11 (also referred to as "Sunset Terrace, WA011000001"); and WHEREAS, said Declaration of Trust was recorded in the real property records of King County, Washington on June 5, 1959, under Auditor's File No. 5040742; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 1971, the Local Authority executed an Amendment to Declaration of Trust that was recorded in the real property records of King County, Washington on December 16, 1971, under Recording No. 7112160147, which deleted a portion of the real property subject to the Declaration of Trust in connection with the State 455320.1 1 000001 1 0002 -1 Highway Department's acquisition of a portion of the real property for a highway widening project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to an Annual Contributions Contract dated June 26, 1961, and a Modernization Grant Amendment to the Annual Contributions Contract with an effective date of November 16, 1988, the Local Authority executed a Declaration of Trust for Project No. WA19PO11001; and WHEREAS, said Declaration of Trust was recorded in the real property records of King County, Washington on August 6, 1990, under Auditor's File No. 9008061288; and WHEREAS, in connection with Phase I of the Local Authority's Sunset Terrace redevelopment efforts, two Partial Releases and Amendments to Declaration of Trust were recorded in the real property records of King County, Washington on November 1, 2013 under King County Recording No. 20131101000587 and on November 12, 2013, under King County Recording No. 2013 1 1 12001047; and WHEREAS, on April 8, 2014, HUD approved of the Local Authority's request to dispose of one (1) non-dwelling, twenty-two (22) dwelling buildings containing 84 dwelling units and 6.4 acres of underlying land at Sunset Terrace, WA011000001, pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the approval letter dated April 8, 2014 from Tamara S. Gray, Director, Special Application Center (the "Approved Disposition"); and WHEREAS, the Approved Disposition will enable a multi-phased mixed finance, mixed-income development being planned for the surrounding area, including the construction of 296 market-rate units by Colpitts Development Co., LLC (or its affiliated entity), the construction of a new park and regional storm water facility to be constructed by the City of Renton ("City") that will provide a community amenity to the residents of Sunset Terrace, and the construction of 40 new subsidized low income replacement housing units by the Local Authority; and WHEREAS, the new park and regional storm water facility to be constructed by the City was originally contemplated to occur as part of a negotiated sale whereby the Local Authority would sell a 3.5 acre parcel to the City at fair market value ($2,640,000) in a subsequent real property transaction involving an exchange of property between the Local Authority and the City; and WHEREAS, due to grant funding conditions and expenditure deadlines, the City has requested that the Local Authority grant the City a utility easement which would allow for the construction of the regional storm water facility prior to the closing of the contemplated real estate transaction between the Local Authority and the City in order to avoid the potential loss of critical funding resources for this project; and 455320.1 1000001 1 0002 -2 WHEREAS, the above referenced Declarations of Trust authorize the Local Authority to grant easements for the establishment, operation, and maintenance of public utilities, subject to HUD's approval in order to release such property from the trust; and WHEREAS, in light of the fact that the Approved Disposition expressly contemplated the construction of a regional storm water facility on certain real property owned by the Local Authority, HUD consents to and approves of the Local Authority's grant to the City of a utility easement for a regional storm water facility in advance of the contemplated real estate transaction between the Local Authority and the City; NOW THEREFORE, HUD hereby releases that portion of the Local Authority's real property as described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, (the "Released Property"), from the Declaration of Trust recorded in the real property records of King County, Washington on June 5, 1959, under Auditor's File No. 5040742 and from the Declaration of Trust recorded in the real property records of King County, Washington on August 6, 1990, under Auditor's File No. 9008061288, and declares the Declarations to be null and void as it applies to the Released Property: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has executed this Partial Release and Amendment to Declarations of Trust as of the day of , 2014. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT By: Name: Harlan Stewart Title: Director, Office of Public Housing, HUD Seattle Field Office 455320.1 1000001 10002 -3 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) On this day before me personally appeared Harlan Stewart, Director, Office of Public Housing, known or proved to me to be the designated representative of the United States of America, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the entity that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of that entity, for the uses and purposes mentioned therein, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute such instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this day of , 2014. (Signature of Notary) (Legibly Print or Stamp Name of Notary) Notary public in and for the State of Washington, Residing at My appointment expires 455320.1 1000001 10002 -4 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF RELEASED PROPERTY 455320.1 000001 10002 EXHIBIT B DEPICTION OF RELEASED PROPERTY 455320.1 1000001 1 0002 June 17, 2014 Mr. Douglas Watt Northwest Cascade, Inc. P.O. Box 73399 Puyallup, WA 98373 RE: CONTRACT DOCUMENT—SUNSET COMMUNITY LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT RETROFIT STORMWATER GREEN CONNECTION: HARRINGTON AVE NE AND HARRINGTON AVE NE WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT,SWP-27-3635 AND WTR-27-3635 Dear Mr. Watt: Renton City Council awarded the construction contract to Northwest Cascade, Inc., in the amount of$1,101,142.55 (including sales tax) at its regular meeting on June 16, 2014. The City Clerk will send you a letter with the official bid award. For the Contract: Please submit the following information as soon as possible so I can prepare the contract documents for review and signature by the Mayor: 1. A list of names, addresses, phone numbers, and emergency phone numbers for: the Responsible Officer, Job Foreman, Insurance Agent, and Bonding Agent. 2. Corporation letter or Resolution giving names of those authorized to sign the contract and samples of their signatures. 3. One copy of your current Washington State Contractor's License (not master license). 4. Your City of Renton Business License is current. 5. One signed Fair Practices Policy Affidavit of Compliance (included). 6. Two signed contract bonds on City of Renton forms (included), UNDATED. The date will be filled in when the contract is signed by the Mayor. 7. Two signed contracts, also UNDATED (included). Hebe Bernardo From: Nolan, Robert (ECY) <rnol461@ECY.WA.GOV> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 8:16 AM To: Hebe Bernardo Subject: RE: Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility - Native Soil Treatment Capacity Hi Hebe, I'd like my hydrogeo to review the tech memo to make sure he is as comfoPtable with the assumptions as I am. I'm hoping he can review it today and provide comments. I'd like to see the tech memo stamped by the responsible PE. I'm happy to talk with you, today after noon, tomorrow or Thursday starting at ten a.m. are all open times for me. Bobb From: Hebe Bernardo [mailto:HBernardo(slRentonwa.gov] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 3:56 PM To: Nolan, Robert (ECY) Subject: FW: Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility - Native Soil Treatment Capacity Good afternoon Bob, I wanted to touch base with you on the Sunset Regional Stormwater Facility. Last week, I sent an email that contained clarification regarding native soil properties for regional stormwater facility. I'm sure you are swamped and just catching up with your emails, but It would be great if we could schedule some time this week to talk about the project. Please let me know what time works best for you.Thanks Bobb and please let me know if you have any questions. From: Hebe Bernardo Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 4:01 PM To: rno1461(cbECY.WA.GOV Subject: FW: Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility - Native Soil Treatment Capacity Bobb Attached is a brief memorandum summarized the native soil characteristics from the geotechnical exploration results in comparison to the State UIC and City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual requirements. With the input from our geotechnical Engineer,we believe the existing native soil (silty sand) underneath the stormwater facility meets the vadose zone requirement that the soil will provide additional treatment to the stormwater runoff enters the facility.The bioretention cells will provide adequate pre-treatment prior infiltrate into native soil. Please review and provide comments as to whether or not this satisfy the soil treatment exemption from providing additional treatment R Hebe Bernardo From: Nolan, Robert (ECY) <rnol461@ECY.WA.GOV> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:19 AM To: Hebe Bernardo; Khan, Heather(ECY) Subject: RE: [Sunset Terrace Regional SW Facility] UIC facility Hi Hebe, After reviewing the soil logs from the geotech report, I am comfortable with the underlying soils treatment capacity. You will still need to register the facility as UIC. Can you confirm that the two gasoline stations across the street do not have the potential to contribute flows to this facility? If they have potential, I'll need to take a closer look at pretreatment for hydrocarbons. Thanks, Bobb From: Hebe Bernardo [mailto:HBernardo(&Rentonwa.aov] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 6:45 AM To: Khan, Heather (ECY) Cc: Nolan, Robert (ECY) Subject: FW: [Sunset Terrace Regional SW Facility] UIC facility Good morning Heather, I think we need clarification on the statement that no untreated runoff can get to the facility, I believe the distinction is no untreated runoff below the design storm event can enter the facility. 1. Runoff equal to or less than the runoff treatment design storm will be treated through bioretention soil prior to discharge through the infiltration gallery (see except below) 2. The treatment capacity of the native soils (vadose zone above groundwater) should provide additional protection. Infiltration rate for our native soils are equal to 1 in/hr(which meets the 2.4 in/hr threshold for providing treatment) and is greater than 5 feet above the groundwater level. I'd need to have our geotech look a little closer but I interpret the treatment capacity to be Medium for a Silty Sand (just over 1:1 ratio of sand to fines) and the pollutant loading Medium (or possibly high, would need to check the ADT for Sunset Blvd.). In either case the requirements either need provide some pre-settling (2-stage drywell) and/or oil trapping (which can be accomplished in a number of structures upstream). Even if solids is required,that is met by the bioretention cells. 3. This concept has not been changed since the pre-design report. Can you please confirm that our assumptions are correct? Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions. 1 Chapter 2 - How UIC Stormwater Wells are Regulatf 2.1 Using a UIC well for stormwater This guickinct docunient applies to LTIC wells that receive storniwater front roads. parking af .and also roof 1-tuloE A TAC' Nvell niay be used to niana.ge stortiivf-ater when polhitzint concentrations that reach gro water are not expected to e%ceed Washingtou State gtround water quality standards(Chapter 200 NVAC), This ou'dance docuni-lit describes conditions and reqnifenients that are ez,'.pecte result in niectin2 these standards. CSC xvells niay be used for ov erflow'from a stormwater faeffity that is gk*r than,bertmofl treatment design storm withow fitrther treatinent. Table 6.4: Pre-treatment Required for Solids, Oil and Metals Find the Trewment Capacin, Classificarion from Table 5.2 and the Pollutant Loading CIasstfication from Table 53. Use Table 54 to determine the pre-treatment requirements for solids. oil. and metals used on these classifications. Pre-treatment technotoeles for--solids, oil- and metals removal are provided by the Department of Ecology storm,.vater manuals. Treatment Capacity High Lou- None Pollutant loadinz ln:i,cwiflcatjr Notre None None None Low ';\'one None None Remove sohds! Two-staee Twoitaae Afediunt 1 'I Remove solids- Removesolids- dtvwells' dry-wells R*move oil and Remove oil and High Remove oil' Remcrve oil' Sol des'' solids'' From: Khan, Heather(ECY) [mailto:HKHA461(�-bECY.WA.GQV] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:59 AM To: Hebe Bernardo Cc: Nolan, Robert (ECY); Mellon, Sean (ECY) Subject: RE: Sunset Terrace Regional SW Facility - Grant Agreement Number G1200544 -- 30%Preliminary design and report 2 Good Morning Hebb, Bobb Nolan reviewed your 30% pre-design for the above referenced project and has the following comments. 1) While the project is a pretty straightforward bioretention/infiltration facility and I can tell you have done your homework, the pre-design memorandum is too thin on documentation for the pre-design phase. Please submit 60%design plans with a pre-design report that provides more detailed documentation. Attached is a pre-design outline for your reference. 2) "Incorporating the five 12-inch diameter slotted underdrain pipes to encourage uniform infiltration within the gallery will require this facility be registered as an Underground Injection Control well. No untreated flows may enter the UIC facility." Please let us know if you have any questions. Kindest regards, Heather Heather Khan Stormwater Grants & Restoration Specialist Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190- 160th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 P: 425-649-7003 From: Hebe Bernardo [mailto:HBernardo(aRentonwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 3:43 PM To: Nolan, Robert (ECY); Khan, Heather (ECY) Subject: Sunset Terrace Regional SW Facility - Grant Agreement Number G1200544 -- 30%Preliminary design and report Good afternoon Attached please see the 30%-design for Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility. Files included are: cost estimate, construction plans (30-percent), and technical memorandum Please review and provide comments. Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions. 3 Hebe Bernardo From: Raymond.Chung@CH2M.com Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 5:04 PM To: Hebe Bernardo Cc: Dustin.Atchison@CH2M.com; Raymond.Chung@CH2M.com Subject: RE: question - City Vactor Truck arm reach Hebe, Attached is two red line for the regional facility.The underground infiltration gallery's shape is revised to avoid the future pergola. The overall area remain about the same. I have just sent that sketch to HBB to see if that will work for the Park, and also want to get your feedback to see if this is acceptable to you. I am still coordinating with HBB to provide the maintenance access path for the facility. Thanks Raymond From: Annie Youngerman [mailto:ayoungerman@hbbseattle.com] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 3:58 PM To: Chung, Raymond/SEA Cc: Atchison, Dustin/SEA Subject: RE: question-City Vactor Truck arm reach Ok. Thanks Raymond. We will take a look at the plans to see where we think the pathways would best accommodate this access. If you have a preferred access route, please let us know. Annie Youngerman Designer HBB Landscape Architecture P 206-682-3051 F 206-682-3245 Seattle I Boise From: Raymond.Chung()CH2M.com [mailto:Raymond.ChungCa>CH2M.com] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 3:11 PM To: Annie Youngerman Cc: Dustin.Atchison@CH2M.com Subject: FW: question - City Vactor Truck arm reach Annie, The City vactor truck can reach up to 25' from the center of vehicle. From: Hebe Bernardo [mailto:HBernardo@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 12:44 PM To: Chung, Raymond/SEA Subject: FW: question - City Vactor Truck arm reach i 25' from the side. From: Richard W Marshall Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 12:10 PM To: Hebe Bernardo Subject: RE: question - City Vactor Truck arm reach 25' from the side. ?icic�zsui Tytandlr.aLL G_t* o -/Zcsttox waAt.I-- ,ate -HII sUAfi-IXC-I-- w Ir:yp- Z-L CVP-A-f-ozc� �i a rya�cJz c7We-e-:425.430.3400 97ax:425.430.7426 From: Hebe Bernardo Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 6:24 AM To: Richard W Marshall Subject: question - City Vactor Truck arm reach What is the arm reach of City's vactor truck (from center of vehicle)? Thanks Rich 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY City Of, tr AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Ib AGENDA Sunset Redevelopment Master Site Plan April 8, 2014 11:00am — Noon Meeting called by Chip Vincent and Rocale Timmons Colpitts Development Company; Peter Renner; Mark Gropper; Grace Kim; Leslie A Betlach; Mark Santos-Johnson; Ronald Straka; Chip Vincent; Hebe Bernardo; Cliff Long; Attendees: Christopher Palms 11:00 — 11:10 am Introduction Rocale Timmons Purpose of the Master Site Plan 11:10 — 11:35 am Level of Land Use Entitlement Discussion Everyone Permit Approvals/Timing Vesting Coordination of Improvements 11:35 — 11:40 am Potential Phases Everyone 11:40 — 11:50 am Submittal Requirements Rocale Timmons 11:50 — noon Future Master Site Plan Meetings Rocale Timmons Goals: • Come to a consensus on the usefulness of a Master Site Plan process. • Discuss scope of the Master Site Plan entitlement. • Provide direction to stakeholders/applicants and set critical dates to complete an application. City of Renton Submittal Requirement Colpitts KCLS RHA Parks Drain Land Use Master Application Form Notarized signature of ownership on completed master Combined application General Project Narrative (Word) FOR EACH PHASE: Project Title and Phase; Current use of the site, Proposed use of the property and scope of the proposed development; Range of SF to be dedicated for right of way, range of SF to be placed in access easements; range#of units; density range; range of commercial SF; access; Proposed off- X site improvements (i.e. installation of sidewalks, fire hydrants, sewer main, etc.); Estimated quantities and type of materials involved if any fill or excavation is proposed; Number, type and size of any trees to be removed; Proposed construction dates; Future permits to be requested (Site Plan Review, LLA, etc). Site Plan Narrative(Word) For EACH GROUP OF PHASES provide narrative demonstrating compliance with the following: a. Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals (EIS) b. Off-Site Impacts. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties. c. On-Site Impacts. Mitigation of impacts to the site d.Access and Circulation. Safe and efficient access and circulation e. Open Space. Incorporation of public and private open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to Combined N/A N/A provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site; f.Views and Public Access. Provision of view corridors to shorelines and Mt. Rainier, incorporates public access to shorelines, and arranges project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. g. Services and Infrastructure. Availability of public services and facilities; h. Phasing. Inclusion of a detailed sequencing plan with development phases and estimated time frames, if applicable. City of Renton Submittal Requirement Colpitts KCLS RHA Parks Drain Conditional Use Justification (Word) 1. Consistency with Plans and Regulations 2. Appropriate Location: The proposed location shall not result in the detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. 3. Effect on Adjacent Properties: the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. 4. Compatibility: is compatible with the scale and character of N/A N/A N/A N/A the neighborhood. 5. Parking: Adequate parking is made available. 6.Traffic:The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area. 7. Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated. 8. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided.Additional Design District Narrative (Word) FOR EACH PHASE provide narrarive demonstrating compliance with: a. Site design and building location; b. Parking and vehicular access; X c. Pedestrian environment; d. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space; e. Building Architectural Design; f. Signage; g. Lighting. Density Worksheet(Word)- Will be consolidated into one worksheet N/A N/A N/A Title and complete a density worksheet FOR EACH PHASE Conceptial Site Plan (CAD) X Proovide conceptual Site Plan FOR EACH PHASE Conceptual Landscape Plan (CAD) X Provide conceptual Landscape Plan FOR EACH PHASE Conceptual Elevations N/A N/A X Provide conceptual elevations FOR EACH PHASE Conceptual Utility Plans Provide conceptual utility/street improvement plan FOR EACH PHASE ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors tr 1,2013 tr 2,2013 tr 3,2013 tr 4,2013 tr 1,2014 r 2,2014 tr 3,2014 tr 4,2014 Qtr 1,2015 tr 2,2015 tr 3, Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul AugSe Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar r may Jun Jul Au Se Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A r Ma Jun Jul 1 Stormwater Facility NTP 0 days Mon 2/4/13 Mon 2/4/13 2/4 2 Sunset Terrace Park 465 Fri 311/13 Thu 12/11/14 Design days? 3 Park Master Plan Awar 0 days Fri 3/1/13 Fri 3/1/13 311 4 Park master Plan NTP 1 day? Tue 2/4/14 Tue 2/4/14 23 5 Park Boundary 1 day Mon 12/30/13 Mon 12/30/13 Received 6 Park Master Plan 24 days Tue 12/31/13 Fri 1/31/1443,5 Facility Siting 7 Park Master Plan 5 days Mon 2/3/14 Fri 2/7/14-6— Kick-off 8 City Parameter Setting 8 days Mon 2/10/14 Wed 2/19/14I7 i- 9 Revised Layout for 14 days Thu 2/20/14 Tue 3/11/14 8 Regional Facility 10 City Review of Layout 5 days Wed 3/12/14 Tue 3/18/14 9 11 Stakeholder Workshop 1 day Wed 3/19/14 Wed 3/19/14 10 12 Open House#1 31 days Thu 3/20/14 Thu 5/1/14 11 13 Park Board Briefing 8 days Fri 5/2/14 Tue 5/13/14 12 14 Council Briefing 4 days Wed 5/14114 Mon 5/19/14 13 15 Open House#2 28 days Tue 5120/14 Thu 6/26114 14,39 - 16 Final design of Park 24 wks Fri 6/27/14 Thu 12/11/14 15 17 RHA Coordination 182 days Wed 9/18/13 Thu 5129114 18 Agreement with RHA 65 days Wed 9/18/13 Tue 12/17/13 for the use of Regional Stormwater Facility for onsite mitigation 19 ti DEMO-DISPO 0 days Tue 10/1/13 Tue 10/1/13 ♦ 10/1 Application 20 DEMO-DISPO 67 days Tue 10/1/13 Wed 1/1/14 19 application approval 21 PIHA Site Trib.Area 0 days Tue l l/12/13 Tue l l/12/13 O 11/12 Received from SvR 22 RHA pre-application 5 days Thu 1/2/14 Wed 1/8/14 20 NODE and PIHA sites 23 P8,SA between RHA 4.6 wks Thu 1/2/14 Mon 2/3/14 20 and the City for Sunset proper park parcels 24 RHA demo public 23 days Tue 4/29/14 Thu 5/29/14 23FS+60 days housing 25 Task 1 Project Managem 18 days? Thu 1/17113 Mon 2/11113 26 Project Set-up 2 days Mon 2/4/13 Tue 2/5/13 1 27 Project Management P 2 days Wed 2/6/13 Thu 2/7/13 26 28 Quality Management PI 2 days Fri 2/8/13 Mon 2111/13 27 29 Project Close-out 1 day? Thu 1/17/13 Thu 1/17/13 30 Task 2 Supplemental Sur 334 days Tue 2/12/13 Fri 5/23/14 31 Review Existing Survey 5 days Tue 2112/13 Mon 2/18/13 28 Task Project Summary Inactive Summary „t 1 t i l i i i,,!t t t Manual Summary O External Milestone Project:Sunset Terrace Regional Faci Split ....... External Tasks Manual Task Start-only Progress Date:Mon 2/10/14 Milestone ♦ External Milestone ♦ Duration-only „,„,.t Finish-only Deadline Summary Inactive Milestone Manual Summary Rollup ♦ External Tasks 0 ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors Qtr 1,2013 tr 2,2013 tr 3,2013 tr 4,2013 tr 1,2014 tr 2,2014 tr 3,2014 tr 4,2014 Qtr 1,2015 tr 2,2015 tr 3, Dec Jan Feb I Mar Apr May Jun Jul Auq Se Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A r Mav Jun Jul AugSep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul 32 Basemap Preparation 5 days Tue 2/19/13 Mon 2/25/13 31 33 Develop Potholing Plan 2 days Wed 5/7/14 Thu 5/8/14 32,60 34 Workplan Supplementa 2 days Fri 5/9/14 Mon 5/12/14 33 35 Procure Potholing Cont 5 days Tue 5/13/14 Mon 5/19/14 34 36 Field Survey T 2 days Tue 5/20/14 Wed 5/21/14 35 37 Update emap 2 days Thu 5/22/14 Fri 5123/14 --36 � 38 Task 3 Public Involvemei 6 days Wed 5/7/14 Wed 5/14114 39 Prepare Open House 5 days Wed 5/7/14 Tue 5/13/14 60 #2 Boards 40 Attend Open House#2 1 day Wed 5/14/14 Wed 5/14/14 39 1/14 41 Task 4 Hydrologic Model 417 days Tue 2/26/13 Wed 10/1114 42 Delineate Tributary Are 2 days Tue 2/26/13 Wed 2/27/13 32 43 Preliminary Sizing 15 days Tue 11/12/13 Mon 12/2/13 42,21 44 Conveyance System Si 2 days Thu 5/29/14 Fri 5/30/14 63 45 LID Performance Mode 2 days Thu 7/17/14 Fri 7/18/14 64 46 Draft Drainage Technic 5 days Mon 7/21/14 Fri 7/25/1445 47 City Review 2 wks Mon 7/28/14 Fri 8/8/14 46,66 48 Final Drainage Technic 5 days Thu 9/25/14 Wed 10/1/14 47,71 49 Task 5 Geotechnical Rep 3 days Thu 7/17/14 Mon 7/21114 50 Finalize Geotechnical F 3 days Thu 7/17/14 Mon 7/21/14 64 51 Task 6 Permit Support 74 days Wed 517/14 Mon 8/18114 52 Draft SEPA Checklist 5 days Wed 5/7/14 Tue 5/13/14 60 53 Final SEPA Checklist 5 days Wed 5/14/14 Tue 5120/14 52 54 Grading Permit Suppor 3 days Thu 8/14/14 Mon 8/18/14 70 55 Task 7 Final Design 167 days Thu 3120/14 Fri 11/7/14 56 30%Design 34 days Thu 3/20/14 Tue 5/6114 57 Drawings 30 days Thu 3/20/14 Wed 4/30/1443,11 58 Cost Estimate 2 days Thu 5/1/14 Fri 5/2/14 57 59 Special Provisions C 2 days Mon 515/14 Tue 5/6114 58 60 Submittal 0 days Tue 5/6/14 Tue 5/6114 28,31,59 51 - -- - 61 60%Design 55 days Wed 5/7/14 Tue 7/22114 62 30%City Review 2wks Wed 5/7/14 Tue 5120/14 60 63 30%Comment Res( 1 day Wed 5/28/14 Wed 5/28/1462FS+5 days,12 Task Project Summary Inactive Summary Manual Summary ® External Milestone Project:Sunset Terrace Regional Faci Split ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, External Tasks Manual Task 0 Start-only Progress Date:Mon 2110/14 Milestone ♦ External Milestone ♦ Duration-only Finish-only Deadline b Summary Inactive Milestone Manual Summary Rollup ♦ External Tasks 0 ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors tr 1,2013 r 2,2013 tr 3,2013 tr 4,2013 tr 1,2014 tr 2,2014 tr 3,2014 tr 4,2014 Qtr 1,2015 tr 2,2015 tr 3, Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Au Se Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A r Ma Jun Jul I Aua Se Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul 64 Drawings 35 days Thu 5/29/14 Wed 7/16/1463,36,3FS+75 d 65 Cost Estimate 2 days Thu 7/17/14 Fri 7/18/14 64 66 Draft Special Provis 2 days Mon 7/21/14 Tue 7/22/14 65 67 Submittal 0 days Tue 7/22/14 Tue 7/22/14 66 7/2 68 90%Design 50 days Wed 7/23114 Tue 9/30/14 69 City Review 2 wks Wed 7/23/14 Tue 8/5/14 67 70 Comment Resolutio 1 day Wed 8/13/14 Wed 8/13/14 69FS+5 days 71 Drawings 30 days Thu 8/14/14 Wed 9/24/14 70 72 Cost Estimate 2 days Thu 9/25/14 Fri 9/26/14 71 73 Draft Final Special F 2 days Mon 9/29/14 Tue 9/30/14 72 74 90%Submittal 0 days Tue 9/30/14 Tue 9/30/14 73 9130 75 100%Design 28 days Wed 10/1/14 Fri 11/7/14 76 90%City Review 2 wks Wed 10/1/14 Tue 10/14/14 74 77 Comment Resolutio 1 day Wed 10/15/14 Wed 10/15/14 76 78 Drawings 15 days Thu 10/16/14 Wed 11/5/14 77 79 Final Special Provis 2 days Thu 11/6/14 Fri 11/7/14 78 h 80 100%Submittal 0 days Fri 11/7/14 Fri 11/7/14 79 1 81 Advertisement for Bid 0 days Mon 12/8/14 Mon 12/8/14 80FS+21 days 218 82 Bid Opening 1 day Tue 12/23/14 Tue 12/23/14 81 FS+10 days 83 Construction Award 1 day Wed 1/14/15 Wed 1/14/15 82FS+15 days 84 Construction 108 days Thu 1/29115 Tue 6/30/15 85 Construction Mobilizatic 5 days Thu 1129/15 Wed 2/4/15 83FS+10 days 86 Construction 60 days Thu 2/5/15 Wed 4/29115 85 87 Planting 5 days Thu 4/30/15 Wed 516/15 86 88 Ecology Grant 0 days Tue 6/30/15 Tue 6/30/15 ♦ 6/30 Expiration Task Project Summary • • Inactive Summary Manual Summary ♦ External Milestone Project:Sunset Terrace Regional Faci Split ......,,,,I,E,,,, External Tasks Manual Task Start-only Progress Date:Mon 2110/14 Milestone ♦ External Milestone ♦ Duration-only Finish-only Deadline Summary Inactive Milestone Manual Summary Rollup ♦ External Tasks AGENDA Sunset Redevelopment Master Site Plan June 10, 2014 1 2-4 p.m. Renton City Council Chambers MEETING OBJECTIVES q-,(I v)t Gkt> -6 L7ju Yh8P • Review Draft Conceptual Master Plan and Building Elevations, as well as Street Reclassifications • Discuss Draft Reevaluation &Addendum and Draft Master Plan Application • Discuss Potential Adjustments to Documents and Next Steps/Schedule AGENDA ITEMS 2:00 A. Overview • Welcome & Introductions • Meeting Objectives 2:15 B. Draft Master Plan, Building Elevations, Street Reclassifications • Source of Base Map, Best Fit Map o Future Site Plans—Additional Field Survey& ROW Calculations Needed • Review Draft Conceptual Master Plan o Development Sites, Park, Streets • Review Building Elevations • Street Reclassifications • Potential Adjustments 2:45 C. Draft Reevaluation & Addendum, Master Plan Application • Points of Flexibility: Number of Dwellings &Square Feet, Density, Lot Coverage, Parking, Height • Mitigation: Similar to FEIS/ ROD/PAO o Impervious Area & Best Management Practices o RMC Design Standards & Building Height • Draft Master Plan Application &CUP Evaluation • Outstanding: Utilities Analysis, Final Phasing • Potential Adjustments 3:45 D. Summary & Next Steps • Timeline for Comments: Return Comments 6/17 • Revisions to Materials 6/27 & City Review 6/30 • Partner discussions 1 ATTACHMENT D: SEWER REVIEW From: David Christensen <Dchristensen@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Thursday,June 05, 2014 2:33 PM To: Rocale Timmons Cc: Lisa Grueter Subject:RE: Civil/ Utility Info Rocale, I looked at the preliminary plans and have the following comments: * The plans do not show the location of the existing sewer system. This is important for a couple of reasons. First,there is a real possibility that the developer will be able to re-use the existing sewer(conditioned on lining the existing sewer mains and manholes)as long as the location does not interfere with the ultimate roadway/building alignments. Second, I have a sewer main that runs in the existing Harrington Av NE alignment that is to become the new park that I do not see simply being re-routed. Our original intent was to keep that line in the park and look to eliminate manholes where needed and/or where feasible. Third, I also have a main in the section of Glenwood that is to be re-aligned at where it reconnects at Harrington. This will have to be looked at as to how it will be re-routed. * Figure 2 shows the library connection coming from the a new sewer main in Sunset Ln. The approved plans have the Library connecting to the existing sewer in NE 10th Street. There also does not show where the park will get its sewer service for its buildings requiring service. The existing line in this portion of Sunset Ln. actually run under the proposed Library building at the west end, near Building 9/10 for Colpits. The existing can work if the park connection either happens into NE 10th, or at the west end, where Colpits can shorten the existing sewer to keep it within the roadway. * Once I can see how my existing system fits with this ultimate alignment, I can then better evaluate how to provide the service to the proposed development. I would tend to agree that the information provided represents a potential "worst case" scenario with the inclusion of the information that my existing sewer lines that run through the new park will need to remain and be slightly amended to accommodate the needs of the park. Hope this helps. Dave C. 1 RENTON SUNSET TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM:ATTACHMENT D From: Rocale Timmons Sent: Wednesday,June 04, 2014 2:39 PM To: David Christensen Cc: Lisa Grueter(Lisa@berkconsuIting.com) Subject: FW: Civil/ Utility Info Hello Dave, As promised are conceptual utility plans for Sunset Terrace and we would love to receive comments from you regarding sewer. Hopefully this is information is sufficient but please let me know if you have questions. Thank you. Rocale Timmons 2 REEVALUATION / ADDENDUM Renton Sunset Terrace Redevelopment I June 10, 2014 Prepared By:BERK Consulting in association with CH2MHill, Mithun,and Weinman Consulting LLC 1.0 Need for Reevaluation......................................................................................................................2 2.0 Sunset Area Alternatives...................................................................................................................3 2.1 Study Area.....................................................................................................................................3 2.2 Land Use Proposals.......................................................................................................................7 2.3 Building Height, Density, Parking and Other Standards .............................................................10 2.4 Facility and Infrastructure Proposals..........................................................................................12 2.5 Impervious Area..........................................................................................................................15 2.6 Master Plan and Other Discretionary Applications ....................................................................17 2.7 Phasing........................................................................................................................................19 3.0 Environmental Analysis...................................................................................................................19 3.1 Land Use......................................................................................................................................19 3.2 Aesthetics....................................................................................................................................20 3.3 Transportation............................................................................................................................24 3.4 Noise...........................................................................................................................................25 3.5 Parks and Recreation ..................................................................................................................25 3.6 Public Services.............................................................................................................................26 3.7 Utilities........................................................................................................................................27 3.8 Other FEIS Topics........................................................................................................................27 4.0 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................................27 DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10,2014 1 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM 1.0 NEED FOR REEVALUATION In May 2011, the City of Renton completed a Record of Decision (ROD) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and a Planned Action Ordinance in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) supporting both milestones was issued April 1, 2011. The ROD and Planned Action established a range of growth and associated facility and infrastructure investments (e.g. park, library, "green streets," etc.) for the Sunset Area Community Planned Action Study Area, for the neighborhood as a whole and for the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment, a site then fully owned by the Renton Housing Authority (RHA). Since May 2011, efforts have continued including the Demolition and Disposition permit for a Mixed Use Library redevelopment on a portion of the property and a purchase and sale agreement with a private developer. This has been followed by a Demolition and Disposition permit for the balance of the Sunset Terrace property allowing for both market rate and affordable dwellings. RHA has developed plans or has constructed units in the Sunset Area that could serve as replacement units for Sunset Terrace when redeveloped. There would be no net loss of affordable units. The number of total dwellings currently under consideration exceeds the number of dwellings studied in the FEIS and considered in the ROD and Planned Action Ordinance. Further, building heights would be increased beyond City maximums for the applicable zone, which would require a discretionary conditional use permit. Setbacks of buildings from the future SR 900 improvement boundaries are less than for the Preferred Alternative. Last, the City is considering reclassifying some local streets serving the Sunset Area to allow a more efficient roadway cross-section while still facilitating circulation. As a result of these potential changes, the City is preparing a revised Master Plan including a new Conceptual Plan to be developed and approved under the Renton Municipal Code Title IV. This Master Plan would facilitate the preparation of phased detailed Site Plans over time and allow the City to determine consistency with applicable regulations. This will also provide more certainty for members of the public and private developers. The changes to the development proposal to add more units and height and to address street standards also require a NEPA Reevaluation demonstrating that the original conclusions of the FEIS remain valid, pursuant to Section 58.47 of US Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) NEPA regulations. SEPA also provides a process using an Addendum to the prior FEIS where information or analysis does not substantially change prior conclusions about impacts (WAC 197-11-706). The purpose of this document is to provide analysis that meets the requirements of a NEPA Reevaluation and a SEPA Addendum and that demonstrates the FEIS original conclusions are valid. This analysis would also provide the basis for ROD or Planned Action Ordinance amendments, if any. This Reevaluation and Addendum document is structured as follows: 1. Introduction 2. Sunset Area Alternatives 3. Environmental Analysis 4. Conclusions DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 2 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM 2.0 SUNSET AREA ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Study Area The primary study area consists of the original Sunset Terrace Public Housing Boundary (approximately 7.3 parcel acres) plus several sites that are planned (or were constructed) for housing redevelopment either on Master Plan sites or on housing replacement sites or "swap sites" (approximately 6.8 parcel acres). Exhibit 1 shows active Sunset Area Revitalization Projects. Sites A through O and X are a primary focus of this Reevaluation and Addendum; of these, sites D, E, and G through O are included in a Master Plan Application. All sites on Exhibit 1 were evaluated in the Sunset Area Community Planned Action Area shown in Exhibit 2. Additionally all of the Master Plan Sites were either considered in the Potential Sunset Redevelopment Study Area (shaded in purple) or"swap sites" (outlined in red) shown in Exhibit 3. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 3 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM Exhibit 1. Revitalization Projects SUNSET TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT SUNSET AREA COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PROJECTS ---------------- ------------- - j we j I May c.eeA 1 s 0 250 Soo I P I �Faat 15.500 NE 18rHST +— —��— � NE 177-H R, � r.y.dYYx.cs ! Sr......:. NE 17TH Sr i i - I I y I r I x J i I r U. Library Site to be j w I I S Surplussed u NE I1rHPE u �. d NF11rHsr --1( `'e• T..__J �sr,ww.PaNwAar.,,ese�1,�, M 0 I suRswt.Rxaa,e.MMsr.,:,. .. j M M L j a1Ns�.ntwsi.s!r M�1tYp«emml nnlAan.LdaVbunq j N K i -A.Gb wood larMrome. jI N -a-uurq Awnw lo.nnonNa j -c-Eo m.mronR.de I L � Nft7 -5-9wnrr«.ksAP.mm.ec Ht 101HALV , � /-' � E-Sand T«nm ia«narros I ¢ ? I 9TH At =. , O-Ph tar.AmYa rMAprYrorh Qhw sirires.►rltatl hYr Pgeco Z �-�--_--- N-CNpatRa,MYW Mwa U[eA w > Q � I M-RMmHW'dMl4vY Hghlands Pa,A 3 I and NerghhoThood I NE SPL -�Rpmdsm.wr.E.aaY CeTaer I 4-Sword PYn I I I H-Sunw Lrr.Loop mVoumn! 0 HE 10M Sfw EA— ?t>; Ywovernwt � I AeYn SrrAwafMlie►e}t4 ` r 5t P !Mes Gw Erh l.rmq Cm4r ` � ----___J U�Mrgar Cr.9 Acasstlr Plryg a,M A—SYMA—?W*c hafsb -HrmOm Ave s4iCfeenCmrocM1as Sto+rrrde RdrMt:•- Community&Economic DMlopmeN -MNrs�o'•m.n.q P.We„n r,,,....vT O"m PAWN{bent'wf1M 14n.1 P,,. y ����-__ doer N.d.n H.vzny N[rvMri Pr DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 4 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM Exhibit 2. Planned Action Area City Limits N62157•sr- Planned Action Study Area Subarea Gib �� 5�1�J NE•2157 ST ei 'at o4t z Central North South Sunset Mixed Use x, x _ Potential Sunset it uZ,--49 Terrace Redevelopment w-NE 18TH ST ±4V < c a mw NE=i gas 17-r U L� g iT A (NS( a, ac PSI NE,17�� NE•15T11 a 5T ;� IN��iw D 506 t DOD J Z Z > ¢ NE STH PL iI a �� ■: �, NE 14TH ST Z NEi14TH ST i Q NE�13TH;PL � / 7 LL W� 51 � ST �r�® �0 > low, �•(� AI W Q z oa o �3� NEt11TH�pL, �m3 z l7 o �z. z �� J� W �: N 11TH'ST = hJ ash - NE H 1 N� S W iIV loono�rlwd�a>. -a.'•=-. .yJ� ysT Ir<2 NE�10TH•ST 3oIF z x� fe7w, t�►ar ?l!£i�511'�:l ►L,'o �Z r z 6 Of h NE'9TH'.P,L 1�f 1�+ cc > w �t■�> � W W W s . c I a 3 ca1�QI z t.; E'; a O w i�w0 0 �NE11TH'PL !` 4 au r rJ, 9 Q W � 2 O lYF'8THS7 -�� w'r � , Pt �wi� C1� � �+► i ls!�o l �Rw wdX-NE6�� �i Odi�Cr�1THii1 NF 6T r. �►� ' �� � ..' E�N4` _� �•�� PL r Nf•�. ,; • _ tern N NEk7,,T/H,ST Saurce:Oty dRenton;King CouttY � '�'�c � �•"'�� � r �!3' �C��t��e� g low—ilkM NE:7TH!PL 'CF Figure 2-1 Planned Action Study Area Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 5 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM Exhibit 3. Renton Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area and Swap Sites Q Land Swap/Housing Replacement Sites NE 1ST ST t ; City Limits ST Study Area ,,, NE, IST ST` 2 Potential Sunset �1 a Terrace Redevelopment TH o N TH S • • Z si ' • 5 o Feet f 1 HIPIa Q m < y NE 15TH 5T 13 M s I E]A ST Z T a Nw NE 13TH PL yl O G E 3TH Si g 9�Qi ��Yi W S W Q W < ? p < NEPPgYIOA o � � o E IIiH Pi a 3 A"r �yt�.�y � NE •TH ST W � W NE 1fTTH PL H W 0 Q G NE TH H7Z ! W INESTHrST. '' Pt NEaTHsr hE'6THIpi hf S p NE•7TH_S7 Sauna:City d iterton;IOrg County i' 9. NE- H PL ` Attachment A '�� Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area and Land Swap/Replacement Housing Sites IN(EIItl11TtaMAI Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 6 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM I-and Use Prnransals In total, 722 dwelling units are proposed on sites A through O and X. About 544 of these units are proposed on Master Plan sites D, E, and G through O. See Exhibit 4 for a summary and Exhibit 6 for a detailed breakdown by site. Additionally, there is a range of commercial space with a low end of 19,500 consistent with more recent planning efforts, and an upper range established in the FEIS of 59,000. Exhibit 4. Summary of Total Units Proposed for Study in Reevaluation Total Land Area Dwelling Commercial Location (acres) Units Square Feet Master Plan Sites Master Plan Sites:Sunset Terrace Redev.A-C,Sunset Terrace Apts,Sunset Park 5.07 544 4,500-39,500 Townhomes E and W(Sites D, E,and H to 1) Library(Site K) 15,000 Sunset Park and Regional Stormwater Facility(Sites L and M) 2.99 - NE loth and Sunset Lane Loop(Site N and O) 1.70 - Other Sunset Terrace Study Area Sites:Edmonds-Glenwood(Sites A and C) 2.35 120 Swap Sites:Kirkland Avenue(B),Sunset Court(F), Library Site for Future Surplus(X) 3.06 58 Total 15.18 722 19,500-59,000 Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton,Renton Housing Authority, Mlthun,BERK 2014 Two alternatives were addressed in the EIS Record of Decision (ROD) and the Planned Action Ordinance as selected alternatives: Alternative 3 and a Preferred Alternative. See Exhibit 5. These alternatives represented the higher growth levels studied in the EIS. The mitigation documents in the ROD and Planned Action Ordinance were based on the range of growth of the Selected Sunset Area Alternatives. Exhibit 5. Comparison of Net Growth in Sunset Terrace and Neighborhood Alternatives Net New Growth Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative Reevaluation Alternative Neighbor- Sunset Neighbor- Sunset Neighbor- Sunset Dwelling Units/Jobs hood Terrace hood Terrace hood Terrace Dwelling units 2,506 479 2,339 266a 2,506 554b Population 5,789 1,106 5,403 614a 5,789 1,279 Employment SF 1,310,113 59,000 1,247,444- 38,100 1,310,113 19,500- 1,259,944 59,000 Jobs 3,330 182 3,154-3,192 117 3,330 60-182 a Does not include approximately 90-100 units to be developed on land swap/housing replacement sites. b Similar to the FEIS,the Sunset Terrace study area Master Plan sites D,E,G to J and L to 0,plus sites A and C. Source:HIS 2011,BERK 2014 The purpose of identifying two "Selected Sunset Area Alternatives" was to define a range of acceptable growth and designs considering the conceptual nature of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment plans as well as the 20-year time horizon of the broader neighborhood planned action. The Preferred Alternative was similar to Alternative 3 with slightly lower growth and a reconfiguration of park space and road network. The two alternatives were similar in terms of potential beneficial and adverse impacts and required mitigation measures. Since the original FEIS analysis, additional site planning has occurred and some changes in units are proposed (— 90 more units than Alternative 3). See Exhibit 7 for the Master Plan Proposals. The City is also proposing a larger park than was considered under either of the selected alternatives, and accordingly some buildings have increased in height or numbers of units. Some streets are proposed for reclassification to achieve the circulation proposals and "green streets" in the EIS. Setbacks of buildings from the future SR 900 improvement boundaries are less than for the Preferred Alternative. As the analysis in this document shows, no substantive changes in conclusions or required mitigation are needed as a result of the revised alternative, termed "Reevaluation Alternative". DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 7 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM Exhibit 6.Study Area and Master Site Plan Properties—Total Units Under Review Added Total Units Proposed Reevaluation Reviewed in Site Name EIS Study Area Status Acres Units Units Reevaluation A Glennwood Townhomes Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Constructed RHA 0.65 8 8 B Kirkland Avenue Townhomes Swap Site,North Study Area Under Construction RHA 0.77 18 18 C Edmonds Apartments Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Future Development RHA 1.70 99 13 112 D Sunset Terrace Apartments Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Part of Master Site Plan 0.54 41 2 43 E Sunset Park West Townhomes Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Part of Master Site Plan 0.55 10 10 F Sunset Court Townhomes Swap Site,Central Study Area Future Development RHA 0.88 15 15 G Sunset Park East(Piha)Townhomes&Apts Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Part of Master Site Plan 1.09 56 5 61 H Sunset Terrace Dev.Building A Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Part of Master Site Plan 0.95 111 7 118 1 Sunset Terrace Dev.Building B Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Part of Master Site Plan 1.13 188 13 201 J Sunset Terrace Dev.Building C Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Part of Master Site Plan 0.81 104 7 111 K Renton Highlands Library Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Part of Master Site Plan See H L Regional Stormwater Facility Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Part of Master Site Plan See M M Sunset Park Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Part of Master Site Plan 2.99 N Sunset Lane Loop Improvements Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Part of Master Site Plan 1.47 O NE 10th Street Extension Improvements Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Part of Master Site Plan 0.23 X Library Site to be Surplused Swap Site,Central Study Area Future Development 1.41 25 25 Totals 15.18 675 47 722 Total Units:Difference Master Plan Proposals with EIS Preferred Alternative +162 +209 Total Units:Difference with EIS Alternative 3 +43 +90 Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton,Renton Housing Authority,Mithun,BERK 2014 Notes: �=Master Plan Sites. Re-evaluation units are 90 units more than the Alternative 3 total and are spread generally to reflect:1)Development of Sunset Court at 15 units(not originally part of Alternative 3 though considered to be part of the Preferred Alternative);2)13 units to the Edmonds Apartments to match the level studied in Alternative 3;and 3)remaining reevaluation units spread in proportion to proposed units unless density maximum would be exceeded(such as Site E). Parcel acres for properties along SR 900 assume dedication of ROW per the 2011 SR 900 Conceptual Plan and 0 feet front yard setback.Lot depths are 120 feet east of Harrington Avenue NE consistent with the VEER site plan for Lots 9/10,and 130 west of Harrington Avenue NE to allow for sufficient depths of buildings that have underbuilding parking,odd geometries and a small setback from Sunset Lane NE.However,it may be possible to reduce the lot depth in some areas west of Harrington Avenue NE and increase the park site. This would have an effect on individual site calculations for density and building/lot coverage but cumulatively the results should be similar. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10,2014 8 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM Exhibit 7. Reevaluation Alternative: Master Plan Sites Sunset Terrace Master Site Plan Z WI / 7 G / z z j o � z �r� ? 14, 16/17 a ?� 5 Q � 47Y yJ NEIGHBORHOOD - f - 1 �G \ PARK 10 �-- 7/8 KEY RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE W COMMUNITY SITE AREALj ��.• _yam��.Y"i'• , \�`. *'.:.. � �ar RF N I ON SUNSFT ARFA MSP �.,� � - M I T H U N DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 9 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM Building Height, Density, Parking and Other Standards Three locations in the Master Plan, all zoned Center Village (CV) and fronting SR 900, now propose plans that are different than standard code requirements for building height, density, onsite open space, setbacks, and building coverage: Sites H, I, and J. Other code interpretations are needed for clarity, such as parking for civic uses (Site M, Park) or to allow the potential for joint parking arrangements (Sites H and 1). Some of these variations require additional permits while others require modification through site plan review. Each topic is addressed below. See also Section 2.5 regarding building coverage. Building Height The FEIS Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3 assumed that the heights in the zoning districts would be the maximum height of future development. In three locations, the Reevaluation Alternative would exceed the maximum height of the zone (see Exhibit 8): • Site H Sunset Terrace Dev. Building A, Property 9: A mixed use building is proposed at 68 feet instead of 60 feet allowed for buildings with ground floor commercial. • Site I Sunset Terrace Dev. Building B, Property 7/8: A multifamily residential building is proposed at 62 feet instead of 50 feet allowed for single use development. • Site J Sunset Terrace Dev. Building C, Property 6/7: A multifamily residential building is proposed at 58 feet instead of 50 feet allowed for single use development. The increases in height are proposed to accommodate the larger park site, which has increased beyond the range of alternatives in the FEIS; therefore in exchange for the larger open space the buildings have increased in height to accommodate additional dwelling units. The increased height would require approval of a conditional use permit (RMC 4-9-030 Conditional Use Permits), addressed in the Master Plan Application, under separate cover. The potential aesthetic effects are addressed in the reevaluation Section 3.0. Exhibit 8. Height Analysis Total Zone Greater or Property Area Proposed Lesser Than per Site Plans Proposed Building Maximum Maximum Units with Height Project Name Location Reevaluation Height in Feet Height RHA Sunset Terrace-Sunset Area Replacement and Affordable Housing Units D Sunset Terrace Apartments Sunset Terrace Lot 0.54 43 50.0 50.00 E Sunset Park West Townhomes Node Lots 0.55 10 30.0 30.00 G Sunset Park East(Piha)Townhomes and Apartmen NE loth Site 1.09 61 48.0 50.00 (2.0) Other Sunset Terrace Public and Private Projects - H Sunset Terrace Dev.Building Sunset Terrace Lot 0.95 118 68.0 60.00 8.0 1 Sunset Terrace Dev.Building B Sunset Terrace Lots 7/8 1.13 201 62.0 50.00 12.0 1 Sunset Terrace Dev.Building Sunset Terrace Lots 6/7 0.81 111 58.0 50.00 8.0 K Renton Highlands Library Sunset Terrace Lot 10 See lot 9 27.0 60.00 (33.0) L Regional Stormwater Facility Sunset Terrace Lot 12 See park M Sunset Park Sunset Terrace Lot 12 2.99 N Sunset Lane Loop Improvements Sunset Lane NE 1.47 0 NE loth Street Extension,Improvements 2800-2900 NE loth St 1 0.23 Total Sunset Terrace Improvement Projects 1 9.761 544 Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton,Renton Housing Authority,BERK 2014 Density The same three sites exceeding height would individually exceed the maximum density of the CV Zone as shown in Exhibit 9. Viewed in context of the overall Sunset Terrace public housing site (Sites D, H, I, J and M), which since 2011 has been planned comprehensively as a coordinated mixed use DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 10 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM redevelopment project with park amenities, the density would equal about 65 units an acre, less than the 80 units per acre maximum. Exhibit 9. Density Analysis Total I Greater or Property Area Zone Proposed I Lesser than per Site Plans Maximum Units with Density i Density Maximum Project Name Location Reevaluation Reevaluation Density RHA Sunset Terrace-Sunset Area Replacement and Affordable Housing Units D Sunset Terrace Apartments Sunset Terrace Lot 5 0.54 43 79.4 80.0 (0.6) E Sunset Park West Townhomes Node Lots 0.55 10 18.2 1 18.0 0.2 G Sunset Park East(Piha)Townhomes and Apartmen NE loth Site 1.09 61 55.8 1 80.0 (24.2) Other Sunset Terrace Public and Private Projects i H Sunset Terrace Dev.BuildingA Sunset Terrace Lot 0.95 118 124.2 80.0 44.2 1 Sunset Terrace Dev.Building B Sunset Terrace Lots 7/8 1.13 201 177.9; 80.0 97.9 J Sunset Terrace Dev.Building C Sunset Terrace Lots 6/7 0.81 111 137.0 80.0 57.0 K Renton Highlands Library Sunset Terrace Lot 10 See lot 9 1 L Regional Stormwater Facility Sunset Terrace Lot 12 See park M Sunset Park Sunset Terrace Lot 12 2.99 i N Sunset Lane Loop Improvements Sunset Lane NE 1.47 0 NE loth Street Extension,Improvements 2800-2900 NE loth St 1 0.23 Total Sunset Terrace Improvement Projects 1 9.761 544 55.7. Density Exlcluding Rights of Way 1 1 544 63.8 1 Note:Density for sites part of original Sunset Terrace,including Park(D,H-M) 7.3 473 64.8 Note: Parcel acres for properties along SR 900 assume dedication of ROW per the 2011 SR 900 Conceptual Plan and 0 feet front yard setback.Lot depths are 120 feet east of Harrington Avenue NE consistent with the VEER site plan for Lots 9/10,and 130 west of Harrington Avenue NE to allow for sufficient depths of buildings that have underbuilding parking,odd geometries and a small setback from Sunset Lane NE.However,it may be possible to reduce the lot depth in some areas west of Harrington Avenue NE and increase the park site.This would have an effect on individual site calculations for density and building/lot coverage but cumulatively the results should be similar. Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton,Renton Housing Authority,BERK 2014 Site E, Sunset Park West Townhomes proposes a density of 18.2 units. The R-14 zone allows a maximum of 18 units per net acre subject to criteria such as providing affordable housing plus site amenities or well-designed parking. The density of 18.2 units per acre is slightly above 18 units per acre; however the definition of net density in RMC Chapter 4-11 allows the City to round down when fractional density numbers are less than 0.5. Parkin, In total across all Master Plan sites, 750 parking stalls are proposed. See Attachment A. On Site H if the number of units is slightly increased per Exhibit 6 above, about 7 more stalls would be needed on that block; however there is more than needed parking on Site I. A Joint Parking Agreement could be developed prior to future site plan approval addressing any shared parking arrangements, provided parking is within 750 feet of the intended site (4-4-080(E)(3)). Next, RMC4-4-080(F)(10) does not specify a parking standard for parks, and a Director determination would be needed; as a neighborhood park primarily serving adjacent development, non-motorized travel would be the primary mode of arriving at the park. Both the park and the regional storm water facility require maintenance access and load/unload areas which have been identified and located through the master planning process. [Haven't seen the load/unload areas.] Regarding the library, there appears to be a mis-print in the code requiring 40 stalls per 1,000 square feet of cultural space, but the likely required rate was intended to be 4 per 1,000 square feet; this topic was addressed in the Site Plan Review approval previously issued for the library site. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 11 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM Onsite Open Spacf In the CV zone, common open space is required to be provided at a rate of fifty(50) square feet per unit. The City may allow substitutions in light of the public park provided adjacent to the properties. See RMC 4-1-240 for Common Open Space Substitutions. This would likely require a Fee in Lieu of Common Open Space. This would be addressed in future Site Plan Review applications. Private open space is required to be provided for each dwelling unit. (Confirm if size is 60 square feet.) A preponderance of the future dwelling units will have private open space such as in the form of decks. However, at the time of Site Plan Review, the Director may approve modifications such as a percentage of units that may have alternative private open space standards if meeting the overall intent of design standards and other criteria at 4-3-100(F) and RMC 4-9-250(D). Setbacks The CV zone setback requires a minimum 10 foot setback which may be reduced to 0 feet as part of the site plan development review process, provided blank walls are not located within the reduced setback. The conceptual Master Plan reflects the future boundary of SR 900 once improvements are made per the plans in the 2011 FEIS. With the difficult property configuration along SR 900 (a "U"dip) and the Sunset Lane to the north, the depth of the lots is constrained particularly at Site H. Therefore, as part of this Master Plan approval, the City will allow setbacks of 0 feet matched to the future right of way line needed to accommodate SR 900 improvements. (Address if 0 feet will also be the setback to Sunset Lane NE.j 2.4 Facility and Infrastructure Proposals Sunset Park and Regional Stormwater Facility With the need to address the future boundary of SR 900 and the desire to meet recreational needs of the future residents, the Sunset Park space was increased from the Preferred Alternative range of 2.1- 2.65 acres (FEIS Chapter 2 and Appendix C) to 2.99 acres. The future 3.0 acre (approximate) Sunset Neighborhood Park in the current Master Plan Application is in a public master planning phase and is the subject of ongoing public meetings. A regional stormwater facility will be co-located within the future park site, (the location of which has been determined through soils analysis), and is also included as part of the master planning process (Preferred Concept-Storm Water Facility). Potential recreation amenities to be included will be consistent with the Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Parks as adopted in the Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan (2012). A perimeter park sidewalk (on park property) will not be included; curbs will be provided. Specific design details for either the Sunset Neighborhood Park or the Regional Stormwater Facility will be determined during the design phase. The anticipated final park conceptual master plan adoption date is December 2014. See parking section above regarding load and unload spaces. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 12 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM Street Reclassifications The City is considering street reclassifications and two new street sections for roads that have 60-foot rights of way presently: Green Collector and Neighborhood Collector. See the preliminary Exhibit 10. Based on a review by CH2MHill, the 60 foot right of way is consistent with the "Green Connections" cross section in the Sunset Area Surface Water Master Plan. However, the Green Connections can only be implemented in some locations and therefore a 60 foot cross-section for a Neighborhood Collector is also proposed. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 13 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM Exhibit 10. Street Reclassification Map— Pending—See Hand Mark Up Exhibit 9.Street Reclassification Map—Needs Amendment 4 t iJ i Y ...�........ sty. i t i ` 7 y i r Cw Oi U Proposed Sunset Area Street Classification ,920 a N .--C�RDW+an .. Community•Eeonomle Development ,pJ/�1� ewe,Ae N-4W Ave NE a 12T St ntweeCm W��..t..weA Hm %bgMM�Eomor4s Ah NE M NE 1N 31 lvr.w eD LeO GREfiN 4oNNEGT1ofJ r r r DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 14 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM 2.5 Impervious Area Land Cover Analysis In support of the NEPA/SEPA process, an analysis of change in impervious surfaces was addressed in the FEIS. Additionally, consistent with the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the proposal has been evaluated with respect to its potential effects on species listed or proposed for listing under the ESA. A biological assessment was prepared and submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in December 2010 for its concurrence with a finding that the proposal may affect, and is not likely to adversely affect, anadromous fish protected under the ESA, and would have no effect on any ESA-protected species under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction. The City and NMFS corresponded in January, February, and April 2011 on NMFS questions. The City received a letter of concurrence in May 2011. Exhibit 11 shows the land cover analysis associated with HIS Alternative 3, and Exhibit 12 shows the analysis associated with the Preferred Alternative. Exhibit 11. HIS Alternative 3 Land Cover Analysis Total Total Total Effective Total Area Impervious Pervious Area Total PGIS Untreated Impervious Location (acres) Area(acres) (acres) (acres) PGIS(acres) (acres) Potential Replacement Sites 3.06 2.28 0.78 0.62 0.26 2.14 Potential Sunset Terrace 12.64 7.04 6.02 2.43 0 4.22 Redevelopment Subarea Total 15.70 9.32 6.80 3.05 0.26 6.36 Source: CH2MHill,April 29,2011,memo to Erika Conkling,City of Renton,Summary of Sunset Terrace Land Coverage Analysis in Response to NMFS Comments Exhibit 12. HIS Preferred Alternative Land Cover Analysis Effective Total Area Total Impervious Total Pervious Total PGIS Total Untreated Impervious Location (acres) Area(acres) Area(acres) (acres) PGIS(acres) (acres) Potential Replacement Sites 3.06 2.57 0.49 0.41 0 2.39 Potential Sunset Terrace 12.64 6.1 6.54 1.7 0 3.66 Redevelopment Subareaa Total 15.70 8.67 7.03 2.11 0 6.15 Source: CH2MHill,April 29,2011,memo to Erika Conkling,City of Renton,Summary of Sunset Terrace Land Coverage Analysis in Response to NMFS Comments A preliminary analysis of land cover in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea has been prepared in Exhibit 13, relying on preliminary site plans for Master Plan sites (D, E, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, and O) plus built conditions for the Glennwood Townhomes (Site A; using Google Earth measurements) and the Alternative 3 layout for Edmonds Apartments (Site C). An assumption for the Park/Regional Stormwater area (Site L and M) is that 30% of the 2.99 acre area would be impervious; however the property is in the design phase and this is speculative. In comparison to Alternative 3, the preliminary analysis indicates that total acres within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea is slightly lower like due to adjustments in rights of way needs, DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 15 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM and the total impervious area is a little higher due to the intensity of building footprints on sites H, I, J and K. However, there is less pollutant generating impervious surfaces (PGIS) as there appears to be less surface parking in the Master Plan than in Alternative 3. Exhibit 13. Preliminary Land Cover Analysis Master Plan and Related Sites Effective Total Area Total Impervious Total Pervious Total PGIS Total Untreated Impervious Location (acres) Area(acres) Area(acres) (acres) PGIS(acres) (acres)* Potential Sunset Terrace 12.11 7.79 4.32 1.74 0 4.68 Redevelopment Subarea Source:Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton, Renton Housing Authority,CH21V1Hill,BERK 2014 Note: *Per FEIS&BA,assumes that 40%of the impervious area in the site would be mitigated with flow control BMPs. Assumes that 30%of the 2.99 acre park site would be impervious.We are investigating if we have accurately included NE 10`h Right of Way,which may bump up PGIS,but not likely above Alternative 3. It is recommended that the City affirm the range of impervious area in the FEIS selected alternatives (Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3) for the Master Plan and related sites such as through a Master Plan condition. The FEIS Alternatives and the above analysis assume that 40% of the impervious area in the study area would be mitigated with flow control BMPs. Therefore more aggressive measures similar to those identified in the FEIS and Drainage Plan would be needed to maintain the range of impervious area in the FEIS selected alternatives. Since the preliminary results for the Master Plan and Edmonds-Glennwood sites are closer to Alternative 3, there are several options that could be incorporated into the detailed site plans for the subject Master Plan properties and/or into related public sites (e.g. RHA's Edmonds Apartments Site C, and RHA replacement site Sunset Court Site F, or future surplused library Site X): • Master Plan Sites (D, E, G, H, I,J, K, L, M, N, and O): Additional best management practices (BMPS) include more permeable sidewalks and other practices such as bioretention for the roadway areas and some raingardens or other practices for the buildings. • Other Public Sites (RHA's Edmonds Apartments Site C, and RHA replacement site Sunset Court Site F, or future surplused library Site X): Increase the assumed flow control and water quality treatment requirements for the replacement sites to offset changed proposals in the Master Plan area. The regional stormwater facility in Sunset Park will address flow control for SR 900 roadway water quality treatment. Onsite developments would provide for their own water quality treatment. The regional facility in the Park is designed for SR 900 and is not designed to receive any stormwater from the Master Plan area, and per the grant funding, this site cannot be used for mitigation. Lot Coverage analysis The Renton Zoning Code includes standards for building cover in the CV and R-14 zones and maximum impervious surface levels in the R-14 zone. All sites meet lot coverage standards, except for Sites H/K, I, and J individually. See Exhibit 14. However, collectively, with the Park site the CV zone sites do meet the CV zone requirements, and is consistent with the overall Master Plan approach to the sites. Site E meets the maximum 85%impervious coverage with only 53% in coverage. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 16 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM Exhibit 14. Lot Coverage Analysis Total Bldg Area Total Lot/Site Footprint(s) Lot Coverage Zone Site Letter Component Bldg Letter Building Name Zone Total Acres Area(sq ft) (sq ft Percent Standard' Difference D 5 D Suns et Terra ce Apa rtments CV 0.54 23,587 11,250 48% 65% -27.3% 75% E 16/17 Sunset Pa rk Town homes West R-14 0.55 23,958 6,000 25% None -40.0% Sunset Park Townhomes East G 11 (Piha Site) CV 1.09 47,480 22,105 47% 65% -28.4% 75% Sunset Terrace Developments Lots H 9/10 A 9/10 CV 0.95 41,397 37,775 91% 65% 16.3% Includes 15K K Library library 75% Sunset Terrace Developments Lots 1 7/8 B 7/8 CV 1.13 49,223 39,950 81% 65% 6.2'<; 75% Sunset Terrace Developments Lots 1 6/7 C 6/7 CV 0.81 35,284 26,557 75% 65% 75% M 12 Sunset Neighborhood Park CV 2.99 130,244 0% 65% -75.0% L including Storm water Facility 75% Total All Master Plan Lots,excluding Rights of Way 8.06 351,173 143,637 41% Total CVZone Only 7.51 327,215 137,637 42% 'CV Zone:65%of total lot area or 75%if parking is provided within the building or within an on-site parking garage. Source:Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton, Renton Housing Authority,CH2MHill,BERK 2014 Note: Parcel acres for properties along SR 900 assume dedication of ROW per the 2011 SR 900 Conceptual Plan and 0 feet front yard setback.Lot depths are 120 feet east of Harrington Avenue NE consistent with the VEER site plan for Lots 9/10,and 130 west of Harrington Avenue NE to allow for sufficient depths of buildings that have underbuilding parking,odd geometries and a small setback from Sunset Lane NE.However,it may be possible to reduce the lot depth in some areas west of Harrington Avenue NE and increase the park site.This would have an effect on individual site calculations for density and building/lot coverage but cumulatively the results should be similar. Master Plan and Other Discretionary Applications Most immediately, the City is intending to consider a Master Plan per RMC 4-9-200. For each Master Plan site, a number of current and future permits are also anticipated. See Exhibit 15. Additionally, in association with the Master Plan approval, a conditional use permit to exceed height standards consistent with RMC 4-9-030 is proposed. Administrative allowances for 0 foot front yard setbacks are under consideration. Interpretations of cumulative density and lot coverage in light of the park area, and the Director's determination regarding parking for the Sunset Park site are also being addressed in association with the Master Plan. The Reevaluation and Addendum may lead to revisions of the ROD and Planned Action Ordinance. [Confirm following staff review of reevaluation and utilities analysis.] Other permits and approvals would follow such as lot line adjustments, right of way dedications and easements, phased / detailed site plans and associated design modifications where appropriate. Last, building and construction permits would be sought. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 17 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM Exhibit 15. Matrix of Permits Approvals and Permits Summer 2014 Future Permits Permits with Site Plan Review G c 0 m7 o •o W ° M° E O E m C C E o N v J '01^ `� o `^ c o o '3 c d = c a c w Z s z ¢ ¢ o ' 0 g coo Site Project Name %+ RHA Sunset Terrace-Sunset Area Replace ment and Affordable Housing Units D Sunset Terrace Apartments X X X X X X E Sunset Park West Townhomes X X X X X X X X G Sunset Park East(Piha)Townhomes and Apartments X X X X X ............-................-..............__................................._...................._........._._. _.............._..._..._.__.....__........._.. ..._._.........................................._....... _.._...._._._.._..._. .._.... .. — _ .. _.._......_...._......._.......__.._..... Other Sunset Terrace Public and Private Pro ects H SunsetTerrace Dev.BuildingA X X X X X X X X X X X I Sunset Terrace Dev.Building B X X X X X X X X X X X X 1 Sunset Terrace Dev.Building X X X X X X I X X X X X X K Renton Highlands Library X X X X Not Applicable:Already approved L Regional Stormwater Fad I ity X X X M Sunset Park X X X X N Sunset Lane Loop Improvements X X X X _ O NE 10th Street Extension,Improvements X X X X Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton,Renton Housing Authority,BERK 2014 DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 18 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM �.7 Phasing The redevelopment of the study area and broader neighborhood was anticipated to occur over a number of years. The Master Plan sites will generally be phased between 2014 and 2017, with some properties to be determined (TBD). Note: Need to understand utility phasing for road phasing. See Exhibit 16. Exhibit 16. Site Phasing Phasing:Year of Construction RHA Sunset Terrace-Sunset Area Replacement and Affordable Housing Units A Glennwood Townhomes 1141-47 Glennwood Ave NE Completed B Kirkland Avenue Townhomes 1508-22 Kirkland Ave 2014 C Edmonds Apartments Edmonds Ave NE Site Unknown D Sunset Terrace Apartments Sunset Terrace Lot 5 2017 E Sunset Park West Townhomes Node Lots TBD F Sunset Court Townhomes 1104 Harrington Ave NE Unknown G Sunset Park East(Piha)Townhomes and Apartments NE 10th Site TBD Other Sunset Terrace Public and Private Projects H Colpitts Residential Mixed Use A Sunset Terrace Lot 9 2014 1 Colpitts Residential Mixed Use B Sunset Terrace Lots 7/8 2015 J Colpitts Residential C Sunset Terrace Lots 6/7 2016 K Renton Highlands Library Sunset Terrace Lot 10 2014 L Regional Stormwater Facility Sunset Terrace Lot 12 2015 M Sunset Park Sunset Terrace Lot 12 2017 N Sunset Lane Loop Improvements Sunset Lane NE TBD O NE loth Street Extension,Improvements 2800-2900 NE 10th St TBD X Library Site to be Surplused 2902 NE 12TH ST Junknown Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton,Renton Housing Authority,BERK 2014 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSE The analysis of each element of the environment below compares the conclusions from the HIS selected alternatives (Alternative 3 / Preferred Alternative) to the Reevaluation Alternative. It concludes that revised Master Plan would not change impacts significantly from those identified in the FEIS. Land Use The Land Use analysis conclusions in the HIS indicated the Sunset Area subarea would advance the City's Center Village (CV) concept in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. It would serve as an incentive for other redevelopment opportunities near the study area. Anticipated growth would help the City meet its 2031 housing and employment targets. These conclusions are still valid for the Reevaluation Alternative which promotes a mixed use redevelopment with open space and civic amenities. Selected Sunset Area Alternatives anticipated a range of 266-479 more dwelling units than existing conditions in a mixed-use development that integrates commercial and civic spaces. The Reevaluation Alternative would provide a maximum of 554 net units in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment subarea; a, greater number of units would be located in the immediate study area, but net growth in the overall Sunset Area neighborhood would not change from that evaluated in the FEIS. The Reevaluation Alternative would continue to implement the overall vision for the Sunset Area neighborhood in City DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 19 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM plans and codes. Where there are differences between the Revaluation Alternative and specifics of the Renton Municipal Code, application for modifications or conditional uses would be made and evaluation based on the City's adopted criteria, which promote compliance with the intent of standards, would occur. Therefore, no changes in overall HIS conclusions are anticipated. HIS mitigation measures would still be applicable and appear well implemented by the Reevaluation alternative since it provides a "protected" large open space, the most intensive development along SR 900, and less intense development on the north side of the loop road: The City shall require construction plans to: • Locate the majority of the most intensive non-residential development along or near NE Sunset Boulevard, where possible. • Implement proposed open space and landscape features to offset the proposed intensification of land uses on the site. • Provide new opportunities for public open space area. • As part of site design, emphasize transitions in density, with less intense densities where abutting lower-intensity zones. (ROD Attachment C, Table 16) The City's site plan review and construction review processes are in place to coordinate dedications and easements: The City and RHA should coordinate on future Sunset Terrace redevelopment and Planned Action Study Area streetscape improvements to ensure that property acquisition that affects buildings is minimized. (ROD Attachment C, Table 16) Aesthetics As described in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, the Reevaluation Alternative will incorporate approximately 90 more housing units than the number proposed under Alternative 3. Reconfiguration of the central park has reduced the footprints of adjacent buildings, thus increasing height and density at these locations. The following sections provide an overview of existing conditions and evaluate the aesthetic impacts associated with these changes. Environmental Context Existing aesthetic conditions are documented in detail in Chapter 3.12.1 of the Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS. As described in that document, the built environment in the study area generally consists of one- and two- story single-family, multifamily, and commercial buildings at relatively low development intensity, though some three-story apartment buildings are present, as well. Much of the housing stock in the area is older, and many of the structures, both residential and commercial, are in need of repair. Overall, visual bulk, as well as light and glare, are quite low. Most of the light and glare present in the study area is generated by vehicular traffic on NE Sunset Boulevard. Sidewalks in the area are often narrow or not present, and the streetscape is generally lacking in pedestrian amenities, though mature street trees are present in many areas. Impacts As described in Section 2.0, the construction of additional housing units in the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area, combined with reconfiguration of the park, would result in additional building height beyond the level studied under Alternative 3 or the Preferred Alternative studied in the NEPA/SEPA EIS, specifically at Sites H, I, and J proposed for development along NE Sunset Boulevard. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 20 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM See Exhibit 17 which shows heights allowed under CV zoning and Exhibit 18 which shows proposed maximum heights under consideration (depending on location 52-68 feet in building heights are proposed; the diagram shows elevations at 50, 60, and 70 feet). The focus is on the subject site; while current buildings on adjacent sites to the south are lower scale presently, they have similar CV zoning and ability to achieve 50-60 feet in height. Visual Character Relative to Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative, the Reevaluation Alternative would represent very minor additional changes to the visual character of the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area. The overall character of the neighborhood would continue its transition from a low-rise, low-intensity land use pattern to a higher-density, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented village. Though the Reevaluation Alternative would further intensify this pattern, improvements to the streetscape and pedestrian environment that will accompany future development, such as bicycle lanes, planted medians, and enlarged sidewalks, will provide aesthetic improvements over the current visual character of the area. With application of required design standards and implementation of the mitigation measures established in the NEPA/SEPA EIS, no additional significant adverse impacts to visual character are anticipated. Height and Bulk The Reevaluation Alternative would introduce additional building height in the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment, beyond the level evaluated in the NEPA/SEPA EIS. Alternative 3 evaluated building heights of 2-4 stories, which was within the range of current zoning regulations. The Reevaluation Alternative would introduce building heights of 5-6 stories along NE Sunset Boulevard, which would exceed the current maximum height allowed by zoning. This would increase the visual prominence of development in the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area, particularly given the location of future buildings on Sites H, I, and J along NE Sunset Boulevard, which is a high-traffic street. Exceeding the maximum allowed building height would require a conditional use permit from the City, to which conditions may be applied to mitigate potential impacts of views from public spaces such as SR 900 and the future Sunset Park. The Reevaluation Alternative would also, however, include a larger amount of park space in the Redevelopment Area, which would provide a substantial amenity to area residents and reduce the overall visual impression of height and bulk from viewers located further northward of the loop road. For park users, who would be closer to the proposed buildings, increased height could create a perception for park uses of being surrounded by buildings looming over them, depending on design treatments. There would be increased height and bulk from the perspective of pedestrians on NE Sunset Boulevard. Thus small adjustments to reduce height and bulk related to the increased height and intensity of the structures would reduce impacts. Current city design standards address some aspects of this through standards addressing building modulation and roofline variation; additional consideration of City design standards regarding upper story setbacks is recommended. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10,2014 21 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM Exhibit 17. Heights Allowed under Present CV Zoning Sunset Terrace Potential Building Envelope Study Q O� NS c IGHBORHOOD PARKAW `` NF r�T � '1&A sT SuvsFr ► .�.�,. _ Aki— RENTON SUNSET AREA MSP o.. MITHUN DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 22 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM Exhibit 18. Heights allowed with Conditional Use Permit Sunset Terrace Potential Building Envelope Study a "ENE r BORHOOD PA f � µ 'jLLAST s r � x; SUNSET at VD Ae � �. a .p. RENTON SUNSET AREA MSP:FINAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW m u io.:inn N I T H U N DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 23 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM Shade and Shadow While the Reevaluation Alternative would introduce greater building heights in the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area, the incremental effect on shading conditions would be minor. The nearby pedestrian areas are already likely to experience some moderate shading from buildings and street trees under Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative, as described in the NEPA/SEPA EIS. Increased height on Sites H, I, and J at the southern end of the Redevelopment Area would have the potential to slightly increase the length of shadows cast on the interior park to the north. However, reconfiguration of the park to increase its size as part of the updated Master Site Plan process would ameliorate this to some degree, and the application of design standards such as upper story setbacks would further reduce shading impact from increased building height. Mitigation Measures Incorporated Plan Features • The Reevaluation Alternative provides for a larger park space than originally proposed with the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3 in the FEIS. Adopted Regulations All development under the Reevaluation Alternative will be required to comply with adopted City of Renton development regulations, as described in the FEIS, including standards regarding site design, open space, residential design, pedestrian amenities, architectural features, and exterior lighting. Of particular relevance to the proposed height increase is RMC 4-3-100E.1. RMC 4-3-100E.1, Transition to Surrounding Development, requires: At least one of the following design elements shall be used to promote a transition to surrounding uses: 1. Building proportions, including step-backs on upper levels in accordance with the surrounding planned and existing land use forms;or 2. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments;or 3. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. Additionally, the Administrator may require increased setbacks at the side or rear of a building in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and/or so that sunlight reaches adjacent and/or abutting yards." Based on this reevaluation, this analysis recommends application of items 1 and 3. For item 1 it is recommended that the City consider upper story setbacks of 2-4 feet along SR 900 and 4-6 feet along Sunset Lane fronting the future Park. Application of these recommendations would be considered during the height-based conditional use permit and during future detailed Site Plan Review. 3.3 Transportation Based on the results of the traffic analysis, the Reevaluation Alternative is expected to operate similarly to the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3. The intersection LOS at each study location is expected to be the same between each of the alternatives, in both 2015 and 2030. The average vehicle delay difference at most of the study intersections in the Reevaluation Alternative is expected to be negligible compared to the delay with Alternative 3 or the Preferred Alternative. Similar mitigation measures as identified in the FEIS would still be required. See Attachment B. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 24 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM There is no change in the overall neighborhood growth and therefore no change in projected traffic volumes and associated noise from the prior 2011 FEIS.As the Reevaluation Alternative makes some site plan changes (e.g. different arrangement of market rate and affordable units, setbacks of buildings from the future SR 900 improvement boundaries are less than for the Preferred Alternative; the Master Plan continues to encircle the park with buildings), a review of the noise mitigation measures is made in Attachment C. Based on the Reevaluation Alternative and the mitigation measures from the FEIS, where applicable, no changes to conclusions about impacts are anticipated. Parks and Recreation Since the time of the FEIS,the City has adopted a Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan and modified its level of service (LOS) standards. Based on an ESRI demographic summary of the Renton Sunset area of nearly 0.44 square miles, the average household size in 2010 was shown at 2.40. Applying this to the proposed net increase in dwellings of 554 dwellings in the Sunset Terrace the population would equal nearly 1,330 persons. The City's developed park standard is 1 acre of parkland per 200 people which would mean the area considered in isolation from the rest of the neighborhood (not necessarily the intent of the citywide parks plan) would produce a demand for 6.7 acres of developed parks. There are additional standards for natural areas that are not necessarily intended to be applied in an urban setting absent critical areas. While the proposed Sunset Park is less than 6.6 acres, it is at 2.99 acres in the Reevaluation Alternative, the largest public space considered compared to FEIS alternatives. Further, if the full City standard were applied the park space would essentially take up nearly all of the original 7.3 acres of the Sunset Terrace public housing site, also not intended by City plans. In sum, the results of the FEIS Selected Alternatives apply to the Reevaluation alternative, as follows, except that the Reevaluation Alternative reduces the potential under-serving of the area with City parks: • Similar to Alternative 3, without additional park and recreation facilities added to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, the forecast population in this subarea would remain underserved with respect to parks and recreation facilities. However, under the Preferred Alternative and the Reevaluation Alternative, Sunset Court Park would be relocated to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Additionally, this park would be expanded from 0.5 acre to 2.65 acres under the Preferred Alternative and would be even larger under the Reevaluation Alternative at 2.99 acres. This would increase the acreage in neighborhood parkland for this subarea and the Planned Action Study Area. • Similar to Alternative 3, NE Sunset Boulevard would be improved to include bike lanes, intersection improvements, and sidewalks, providing a more walkable corridor and more direct access route between residential areas and parkland. • Under the Preferred Alternative and the Reevaluation Alternative,the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would be underserved, according to the results when applying the City's parks and recreation LOS standards. • Stormwater elements would be incorporated into park and recreation facilities within the Planned Action Study Area under the Preferred Alternative. See the water resources analysis (Final EIS Section 3.3)for a discussion of combining facilities. However, Stormwater management facilities cannot be counted toward park/recreation acreage for purposes of meeting park LOS. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 25 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM Some original mitigation measures addressed in the FEIS and resulting ROD have been implemented previously to reduce impacts, including: • A new Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan addressing parks and recreation services citywide. • The City adopted amendments to its development codes that would provide for payment of a fee- in-lieu for required common open space. Other mitigation measures identified in the FEIS would still be applicable broadly in the neighborhood benefiting the study area: • The City and Renton School District could develop a joint-use agreement for public use of school grounds for parks and recreation purposes during non-school hours. Joint-use agreements between the City and Renton School District could also be used to, at least partially, address the LOS deficiencies in existing recreation facilities. • The City could add parks and recreation facilities such as: o The City could convert current public properties no longer needed for their current uses to parks and recreation uses, such as the Highlands Library that is intending to move and expand off site. Draft EIS Figure 4.15-2 shows properties in public use. o The City could purchase private property for parks and recreation use. An efficient means would be to consider properties in the vicinity of existing parks and recreation facilities or where additional population growth would be greatest. Draft EIS Figure 4.15-2 shows locations where future demand could be greater and where the City could focus acquisition efforts. Public Serviceti The overall conclusions of the FEIS for Selected Alternatives is expected to be similar for the Reevaluation Alternative, except that patterns of growth and demand may slight shift to have slightly greater need in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area and slightly less in the overall neighborhood: • The Renton Police Department could experience an increase in calls for service related to construction site theft,vandalism, or trespassing relating to construction. • Construction impacts on fire protection and emergency medical services could include increased calls for service related to inspection of construction sites and potential construction-related injuries. • There may be temporary changes to nonmotorized and motorized access to health care services during infrastructure construction (e.g., NE Sunset Boulevard), but alternative routes would be established. • There may be temporary changes to nonmotorized and motorized access to social services during infrastructure construction (e.g., NE Sunset Boulevard), but alternative routes would be established. • Redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace housing development would displace the existing on-site community meeting space that is currently used for on-site social service programs. However,the space would be replaced onsite or nearby with a larger and more modern facility, and with appropriate phasing of development, disruption to on-site social service programs can be minimized or avoided. • Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would result in construction-related waste generation. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 26 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM • When the library is relocated, library services may be temporarily unavailable in the study area, but services would be available at other branches. The FEIS identified specific demand ratios for all of the above services and calculated the number of personnel, space, etc. that would result from the growth in the neighborhood as a whole and in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. There would be an increase in dwellings and population in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, but no change to the growth in overall neighborhood dwellings and population, under the Reevaluation Alternative. Therefore, it is anticipated that the share of demand for services and space would slightly increase in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, but not in the neighborhood as a whole, and overall FEIS results are applicable as are the mitigation measures. Utilitie [To be provided by City following Master Plan review meeting; also see correspondence regarding sewer in Attachment D.] Other FEIS Topics Generally, regarding natural environment topics (earth, air quality, water resources, plants and animals), there are no anticipated changes to overall conclusions or mitigation measures in the ROD and Planned Action since the proposed mixed use development activities are essentially occurring the same footprint and the impervious estimates in the FEIS and ROD are maintained [confirm]. Conditions, mitigation measures, and conclusions regarding Environmental Health and Historic/Cultural Features are likewise unchanged. No environmental health conditions or cultural resources features are known in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, but in case such features are uncovered mitigation measures would apply. Built environment topics that are more suited to analysis under cumulative growth conditions include air quality and energy. The level of potential greenhouse gas emissions and energy use may be slightly higher in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, but not in the neighborhood as a whole, and overall FEIS results are applicable as are the mitigation measures. Last, regarding socio-economics, housing, and environmental justice, it is anticipated that the overall conditions and impacts regarding the potential for change in the neighborhood, need for relocation assistance, etc. are still valid as the study area would still redevelop from present conditions to a mixed use, amenity-rich environment. "- CONCLUSIONS The City of Renton (City) is the Responsible Entity and lead agency for NEPA purposes. In accordance with specific statutory authority and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) regulations at 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 58, the City is authorized to assume responsibility for environmental review, decision-making, and action that would otherwise apply to HUD under NEPA. Additionally, the City is the proponent of the broader Planned Action for the Sunset area which has had environmental review under Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 43.21C). The City has performed joint NEPA/SEPA environmental review in cooperation with the Recipient, the Renton Housing Authority (RHA). Accordingly, the City prepared a Draft and Final EIS to analyze DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 27 RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM potential impacts of redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) supporting both milestones was issued April 1, 2011. The City initiated consultation with agencies and tribes regarding permit requirements and to identify any areas of concerns regarding the Sunset Terrace public housing redevelopment as well as the overall Planned Action. Federal and state agencies were notified of comment opportunities through the scoping process and were offered comment opportunity on the Draft EIS. Two agencies were particularly consulted consistent with NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106), and the Endangered Species Act (Section 7). As documented in the ROD and Environmental Review Record, the City received a letter of concurrence from NMFS in May 2011. The Biological Assessment and NMFS memoranda are included in the Environmental Review Record. The City also completed Section 106 consultation for Sunset Terrace redevelopment and all properties fronting NE Sunset Boulevard as documented in the ROD and Environmental Review Record. In addition, consistent with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, the City received a letter of consistency from the State of Washington Department of Ecology (16 U.S.C. 1451-1464). In May 2011, the City of Renton completed a ROD in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, and a Planned Action Ordinance in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act. The ROD and Planned Action Ordinance identified mitigation measures from the FEIS. The ROD concluded that "With the application of City-adopted development regulations and recommended mitigation measures, and application of other federal and state requirements, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Pursuant to 40 CFR 1505.3, this decision to proceed with Sunset Terrace and actions in the broader area will be implemented and mitigation measures imposed through appropriate conditions in any land use or related permits or approvals issued by the City of Renton and through conditions of federal funding." This Reevaluation and Addendum maintains the mitigation measures from the ROD and Planned Action and identifies where the application of such mitigation measures (e.g. design guidelines, stormwater best management practices) is particularly relevant and could be included in permit conditions. [Pending: Address when the utilities analysis is complete, and following staff review of the Reevaluation. In general, we would like to be able to say something similar to the following example statement from Bay Vista in Bremerton: The City finds by this re-evaluation, after considering the effects of the revised Master Plan and existing and supplemental environmental documentation, that no substantive change to the findings in the Record of Decision would occur. The Westpark EIS adequately examines the impacts of the overall project, and the proposed changes in the Master Plan would not result in modification to those conclusions. No new or significantly different impacts to the environment would occur. Mitigation measures incorporated in the proposal and identified in the EIS, and additional consultation and mitigation documented in the Record of Decision, represent reasonable steps to reduce adverse environmental effects of the proposed project. Together, these measures and would reduce effects to acceptable levels. No additional mitigation is warranted as a result of changes proposed in the Master Plan.] DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 28 ATTACHMENT A: RENTON SUNSET TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT: PARKING ANALYSIS Proposed Parking Total Spacesfor Total Proposed Additional Use Type Proposed Parking City Parking Needed Neighborhood (Orig Units with Spaces for Renton Municipal Code: Use/ City Min Max for beyond Site Building Name Use Proposal) Reevaluation Project Zoning Min-Max of Required Spaces for Use Use Proposal D Sunset Terrace Site 5 Residential(low income) 41 43 41 CV low income .25-1.75 per DU 10.75 75.25 Allowed Range: 10.75 75.25 None Attached dwellings within all J Sunset Terrace Site 6/7 Residential 190 112 190 CV other zones/ 1-1.75 per DU ill 194.25 Allowed Range: ill 194.25 None Attached dwellings within all I Sunset Terrace Site 7/8 Residential 271 201 271 CV other zones/ 1-1.75 per DU 201 351.75 Allowed Range: 201 351.75 None K Sunset Terrace Site 9/10 Library(15,000 sq ft) 51 182 CV cultural:4 per 1000 sf 60 60 Retail(2.5 stall/1,000 sq ft), Services(3/1000 sq ft),Office 11 11 H Commercial(4,489 sq ft) 11 (2/1000 s ft) Attached dwellings within all 118 207 H Residential ill 118 other zones/ 1-1.75 per DU Allowed Range: 189 278 G Sunset Terrace Site 11 Residential(low-income) 61 56 CV low income .25-1.75 per DU 15.25 98 Allowed Range: 15.25 98 None Residential: 3-bedroom E Sunset Terrace Site 16/17 townhomes 10 30 10 R-14 low income .25-1.75 per DU 2.5 17.5 10 Albwed Range: 2.5 17.5 None Reevaluation:June 10,2014 1 CH2MHILL Attachment B SUNSET AREA COMMUNITY PLANNED ACTION UPDATE: Sunset Area Community Planned Action Update: Traffic Analysis Results - May 2014 Redevelopment Master Site Plan Alternative INTRODUCTION This memorandum provides traffic analysis results for the May 2014 Redevelopment Master Site Plan Alternative,or Reevaluation Alternative,of the Sunset Area Community Planned Action,and compares these results with operations for Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative as documented in the Final NEPA/SEPA EIS. Compared to Alternative 3,the Reevaluation Alternative includes a maximum of 90 additional units in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.These 90 additional units are shifted out of the North, South,and Sunset Mixed Use areas of the Planned Action study area. This analysis focuses on the intersection operations expected as a result of this shift. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Trips generated by Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative in the Planned Action study area were estimated using the City's version of the PSRC regional travel forecasting model with applied future-year proposed land uses.The Alternative 3 traffic volumes,as analyzed in the Final NEPA/SEPA EIS,were used as a base to develop the Reevaluation Alternative volumes. Trips generated by the 90 additional units were removed from the North,South,and Sunset Mixed Use areas,and re-routed to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment.Assuming the 90 shifted housing units consist of medium to high density low-rise apartment dwellings, approximately 61 trips would be generated during the weekday PM peak hour. (Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation Manual,9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers.) Approximately half of the units (47 units)would be shifted from the North subarea, 37 percent (33 units) would be shifted from the South subarea,and the remaining 11 percent(10 units) would come from the northeast end of the Sunset Mixed Use subarea. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS RESULTS Traffic analysis results were calculated for the PM peak hour for the years 2015 and 2030. In general,future traffic patterns in the Reevaluation Alternative would differ slightly from both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3. On eastbound NE Sunset Boulevard fewer trips would turn left at Kirkland Avenue NE (since they would no longer be accessing housing units in the North subarea).These trips would likely 1 turn left onto Harrington Avenue NE or NE 10th Street instead to reach the 90 units that have shifted into the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Fewer trips on southbound Edmonds Avenue NE would turn left to eastbound NE 12th Street, and would instead be likely to continue south to NE Sunset Boulevard.At NE Sunset Boulevard, these vehicles would turn left and continue to Harrington Avenue NE or NE loth Street to reach the housing units. As a result of the shift in units from the South subarea, fewer trips would turn right from eastbound NE Sunset Boulevard to Edmonds Avenue NE, Harrington Avenue NE,or NE 10th Street.Instead,these trips would likely turn left at Harrington Avenue NE or NE loth Street from NE Sunset Boulevard. Traffic operations for the Reevaluation Alternative are analyzed assuming the same signal timing as currently employed by the City.This existing signal timing and phasing provides a conservative analysis of future operations.The expected operational levels of service(LOS) and delay results in 2015 with Reevaluation Alternative are compared to the operations results of the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3 in Table 1.Table 2 shows the operational results comparison for the year 2030. Table 1.2015 Intersection Operations-Alternative 3 Revised (Compared to Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3) Preferred Alt 3 Reevalu- Alt ation Delay Delay Delay # Intersection Control LOS (s) LOS (s) LOS (s) 1 NE Sunset Blvd&NE Park Dr Signalized A 9.2 A 9.3 A 9.3 2 NE Sunset Blvd&Edmonds Ave NE Signalized B 12.0 B 12.4 B 12.0 3 NE Sunset Blvd&Harrington Ave NE Signalized A 6.6 A 6.7 A 7.5 4 NE Sunset Blvd&NE 10th St Signalized B 14.6 B 16.2 B 16.3 5 NE Sunset Blvd&Kirkland Ave NE OWSC B 10.3 B 10.3 B 10.3 6 NE Sunset Blvd&NE 12th St Signalized C 24.1 C 24.3 C 24.3 7 NE Sunset Blvd&Monroe Ave NE OWSC B 15.0 B 15.0 B 15.0 8 Edmonds Ave NE &NE 12th St AWSC F 54.2 F 55.8 F 54.3 9 Harrington Ave NE&NE 12th St AWSC D 34.6 D 35.0 D 32.4 10 Kirkland Ave NE&NE 12th St AWSC B 12.8 1 B 12.8 B 12.6 OWSC= one-way stop control;AWSC =all-way stop control; LOS =level of service Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle. Bold type indicates results worse than City LOS D threshold. 2 Table 2.2030 Intersection Operations-Alternative 3 Revised(Compared to Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3) 2030 PM ' • ak Preferred Alt 3 Reeval- Alt uation Delay Delay Delay # Intersection Control LOS (s) LOS (s) LOS (s) 1 NE Sunset Blvd&NE Park Dr Signalized B 11.5 B 11.9 B 11.9 2 NE Sunset Blvd&Edmonds Ave NE Signalized B 13.7 B 13.7 B 13.6 3 NE Sunset Blvd&Harrington Ave NE Signalized A 8.2 A 8.3 A 8.7 4 NE Sunset Blvd&NE 10th St Signalized C 20.2 C 20.6 C 20.5 5 NE Sunset Blvd&Kirkland Ave NE OWSC B 11.0 B 11.1 B 11.1 6 NE Sunset Blvd&NE 12th St Signalized D 36.9 D 38.8 D 38.9 7 NE Sunset Blvd&Monroe Ave NE OWSC C 15.6 C 15.6 C 15.6 8 Edmonds Ave NE &NE 12th St AWSC F 96.3 F 99.6 F 97.4 9 Harrington Ave NE&NE 12th St AWSC F 67.1 F 68.9 F 64.8 10 Kirkland Ave NE&NE 12th St AWSC B 14.2 1 B 14.4 B 14.0 OWSC= one-way stop control;AWSC = all-way stop control; LOS =level of service Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle. Bold type indicates results worse than City LOS D threshold. Based on the results of the traffic analysis,the Reevaluation Alternative is expected to operate similarly to the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3. The intersection LOS at each study location is expected to be the same between each of the alternatives,in both 2015 and 2030.The average vehicle delay difference at most of the study intersections in the Reevaluation Alternative is expected to be negligible compared to the delay with Alternative 3 or the Preferred Alternative. At the stop-controlled intersection of NE 12th Street and Edmonds Avenue NE,the average vehicle delay with Reevaluation Alternative is slightly better than the delay in Alternative 3 but slightly worse than with the Preferred Alternative.This nominal improvement over Alternative 3 would not affect the LOS F condition,but would reduce the average delay per vehicle by approximately 2 seconds.This slight reduction is likely due to fewer vehicles making left turns at this location.Trips generated by the 90 shifted units would likely access the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea directly from NE Sunset Boulevard,and would no longer have to travel through the intersection at NE 12th Street and Edmonds Avenue NE to reach their destination. The stop-controlled intersection of NE 121h Street and Harrington Avenue NE would operate at LOS F in each alternative in 2030 but would experience minor delay improvements with Reevaluation Alternative compared to Alternative 3 (approximately 4 seconds per vehicle) and the Preferred Alternative (approximately 2 seconds per vehicle on average). Due to the shift in 3 housing units from the north,fewer trips would travel through the NE 12th Street at Harrington Avenue NE intersection,which reduces the overall delay,because they would likely remain on NE Sunset Boulevard to access their destination. Vehicles accessing the 90 additional housing units in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would likely come from both directions of NE Sunset Boulevard. Harrington Avenue NE and NE 10th Street would provide direct access to these units;therefore both these intersections on NE Sunset Boulevard would experience slightly higher turning traffic volumes in Reevaluation Alternative compared to Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative. The increase in vehicle demand is not expected to affect the LOS in Reevaluation Alternative compared to Alternative 3; both intersections are expected to operate at LOS B or better in both horizon years.The additional vehicles are not expected to significantly worsen the average delay per vehicle since both locations are signalized and are expected to have ample capacity to accommodate increases in vehicle demand resulting from 90 additional housing units. The mitigation measures identified in the ROD would still be appropriate,as follows: 4 Table 28. Transportation Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea Operational Mitigation No permanent mitigation measures are Planned Action applicants shall pay a Transportation recommended within Potential Sunset Terrace Impact Fee as determined by the Renton Municipal Redevelopment Subarea.The intersection Code at the time of payment,payable to the City as operations under action alternatives are specified in the Renton Municipal Code. expected to be within the LOS D threshold. Planned Action applicants shall provide a traffic During construction,mitigation measures are analysis estimating trips generated by their those described for the Planned Action Study proposed development and demonstrate Area.Flaggers,advance warning signage to conformance with the Planned Action Ordinance trip alert motorists of detours or closures,and ranges and thresholds in Section 3(d) (4)as well as reduced speed zones would likely benefit demonstrate conformance with the City's traffic operations. concurrency requirements in RMC 4-6-070. When demonstrated by an applicant's analysis that operational LOS standards reviewed in the EIS are exceeded at the following locations,intersection improvements shall be made by planned action applicants as appropriate to meet LOS D and in conformance with the City's street standards in RMC 4-6-060: . Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street:an additional southbound left-turn pocket and westbound right-turn pocket would improve operations to LOS E,while added pedestrian-and bicycle-oriented paths or multi-use trails to encourage mode shifts would likely improve operations to LOS D. . At the Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street intersection:the eastbound and westbound approaches could be restriped to increase the number of lanes and,therefore,the capacity of the intersection.With implementation,this intersection would improve to LOS D. Construction Mitigation Temporary mitigation during construction may be necessary to ensure safe travel and manage traffic delays.The following mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to or during construction within the Planned Action Study Area. Prior to construction: o Assess pavement and subsurface condition of roadways being proposed for transport of construction materials and equipment. Ensure pavement can support loads. Adequate pavement quality would likely reduce the occurrence of potholes and would help maintain travel speeds. o Alert landowners and residents of potential construction.Motorists may be able to adjust schedules and routes to avoid 5 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea construction areas and minimize disruptions. o Develop traffic control plans for all affected roadways.Outline procedures for maintenance of traffic,develop detour plans, and identify potential reroutes. o Place advance warning signage on roadways surrounding construction locations to minimize traffic disturbances. During construction: o Place advance warning signage on NE Sunset Boulevard and adjacent arterials to warn motorists of potential vehicles entering and exiting the roadway.Signage could include"Equipment on Road,""Truck Access,"or"Slow Vehicles Crossing." o Use pilot cars as dictated by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). o Encourage carpooling among construction workers to reduce traffic volume to and from the construction site. o Employ flaggers,as necessary,to direct traffic when vehicles or large equipment are entering or exiting the public road system to minimize risk of conflicts between trucks and passenger vehicles. o Maintain at least one travel lane at all times, if possible.Use flaggers to manage alternating directions of traffic.If lane closures must occur,adequate signage for potential detours or possible delays should be posted. o Revisit traffic control plans as construction occurs.Revise traffic control plans to improve mobility or address safety issues if necessary. s Attachment C Summary of Reevaluation Approach — Noise EIS Impact Analysis: Development would result in a noise increase from vehicles traveling on NE Sunset Boulevard and local streets. As disclosed in the EIS, the estimated day-night noise levels from NE Sunset Boulevard at the adjacent buildings indicates they would be exposed to "normally unacceptable" noise levels exceeding U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) outdoor day-night noise criterion of 65 dBA. The noise levels at these first row residential dwellings currently exceed the HUD noise criterion and would continue to exceed the criterion under Selected Sunset Area Alternatives. Noise levels would be below the "unacceptable" criteria. Conclusions: Portions of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, even under existing conditions and the No Action Alternative, would be deemed "normally unacceptable" under the HUD noise criteria without implementation of noise attenuation mitigation, due to traffic noise from the adjacent street (NE Sunset Boulevard). No significant unavoidable adverse noise impacts are anticipated in this subarea, if the noise control measures noted below are implemented to reduce anticipated future traffic noise to levels suitable for residential uses under the HUD criteria. ROD and Planned Action Mitigation Measures and Status with Master Plan Proposals: Original Mitigation Measure Approach in Master Plan Site design approaches shall be incorporated to Market rate units would be placed along SR 900.The reduce potential noise impacts including the City's design standards for building modulation following. together with topography, especially west of Harrington would reduce the number of units that abut SR 900. • Concentrating park and open space uses are away • This measure is implemented by the design of the from NE Sunset Boulevard. mixed use development generally encircling a public open space that is located well away from SR 900. • Where park and open space uses must be located • Some private open space associated with market near NE Sunset Boulevard, avoiding activities that rate residential units may be located near SR 900, require easily understood conversation (e.g., but the primary open space will be the public instructional classes), or other uses where quiet park noted above as located well away from SR conditions are required for the primary function 900. of the activity. • Allowing for balconies on exterior facing units • At a conceptual level,the placement of balconies only if they do not open to a bedroom. is not known at this time.At the time of site plan review or building permits this may be addressed. • Units that are to be supported with public funding are placed north of the proposed park,the furthest distance from SR 900. BERK Consulting June 9, 2014 1 SUMMARY OF REEVALUATION APPROACH-NOISE Original Mitigation Measure Approach in Master Plan According to HUD noise guidebook, noise • The City will apply construction standards via the attenuation from various building materials are International Building Code and the State Energy calculated using sound transmission class (STC) Code.These codes would likely lead to building rating.Although the standard construction materials and practices that could meet the approaches can normally achieve the STC rating of standard STC rating and likely beyond. For more than 24 dBA as demonstrated in Final EIS example,compared to assumptions included in Appendix E,the City shall require a STC rating of 30 FEIS Appendix F, page 4, February 23, 2011 dBA reduction for these first row residential memo,the City's adopted Energy Code insulation dwellings because the HUD noise guidebook shows standards are much higher than the assumptions that the sound reduction achieved by different considered: 1.A standard exterior wall is actually techniques may be a little optimisticl. 2x6 studs with R-21 insulation. 2. Windows are double pane not single pane. (pers com,Jan Conkling, Energy Plans Reviewer, City of Renton) Other Mitigation Previously Considered and Rejected, Appendix F of FEIS: The noise analysis in Draft EIS Section 3.6/4.6 and Final EIS Section 3.6 shows that sound walls are not feasible due to the height and location and lack of benefit to upper storey uses; the mixed use character of the development close to sidewalks and roads is intended to invite community use. The shallow nature of the property, topography, lot pattern, and the road system as well as zoning requirements mean that the [Preferred Alternative] building setbacks from NE Sunset Boulevard are the most that can be reasonably achieved and are greater than the current development. 1 HUD noise guidebook, Chapter 4, page 33"... use the STC ratings with a bit of caution and remain aware of the possible 2-3 dB overstating that you may get with the STC rating system." BERK Consulting June 9, 2014 2 CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVE AND REVIEW CRITERIA ANALYSIS Renton Sunset Terrace Redevelopment I June 10, 2014 1.0 Project Narrative...............................................................................................................................2 1.1 Study Area and Master Plan Boundary.........................................................................................2 1.2 Proposed and Existing Land Use...................................................................................................5 1.3 Transportation/Circulation .........................................................................................................11 1.4 Sunset Park and Regional Stormwater Detention ......................................................................13 1.5 Utilities(placeholder for now)....................................................................................................13 1.6 Phasing........................................................................................................................................14 2.0 Design and Code Compliance..........................................................................................................14 2.1 Density........................................................................................................................................14 2.2 Parking ........................................................................................................................................15 2.3 Lot Coverage...............................................................................................................................17 2.4 Design..........................................................................................................................................18 3.0 Future Permits ................................................................................................................................21 4.0 Master Plan Compliance.................................................................................................................23 5.0 Conditional use Permit compliance................................................................................................26 DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10,2014 1 RENTON SUNSET TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVE AND REVIEW CRITERIA ANALYSIS 1.0 PROJECT NARRATIVE The City of Renton, along with the Renton Housing Authority (RHA), King County Library Syste, and Colipitts Development, and community partners, is redeveloping the Sunset Terrace public housing community, an approximately 10-acre site within the larger Sunset Area Community Neighborhood in northeast Renton. The Sunset Terrace community is bounded by Sunset Blvd NE on the south that forms a U-shaped border, Glenwood Avenue NE and NE 10`h Street on the north; Harrington Avenue NE bisects the area. Redevelopment of this area envisions Sunset Terrace as a mixed-use, mixed-income community anchored by a new public library and a new park. Mixed-use sites will have both market rate and affordable rental housing in multi-story, multi-family townhomes and apartments, along with commercial and retail space. Defining features of the site plan include: • An expanded Sunset Neighborhood Park centrally located within the site. • A circular local road system that facilitates circulation around the park, connecting Sunset Lane, NE 10`h, and the southern end of Glenwood Ave NE. • Compatibility with future multimodal SR 900 improvements. • Mixed-use development with residential and commercial uses including retail space and a library. • A Library situated at the corner of NE 10`h and Sunset Blvd. NE across from the proposed expanded park. The following narrative is intended to accompany the conceptual Master Plan developed for the City of Renton. While it is anticipated that the conceptual Master Plan will be refined as additional information becomes available, it is the intent of this conceptual plan and narrative to articulate the goals and design elements that are essential to the overall vision of the redevelopment plan. This Master Site Plan will facilitate the preparation of phased specific site plans over time and allow the City to determine consistency. Study Area and Master Plan Boundary Exhibit 1 shows active Sunset Area Revitalization Projects in the broader neighborhood. Sites D, E, and G through O are included in this Master Plan Application. Exhibit 2 shows a conceptual Master Plan for Sites D, E, and G through O. This Project Narrative references the block numbers on the conceptual Master Plan. The following provides block by block descriptions of the Master Plan land use, building height, access, and open space. Please refer to the Conceptual Master Plan, Exhibit 2, for the site location reference. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 2 RENTON SUNSET TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVE AND REVIEW CRITERIA ANALYSIS Exhibit 1. Revitalization Projects SUNSET TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT SUNSET AREA COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PROJECTS i I � I m I my Crw*WW I Pad 0 250 500 i P ©Faa r&500 NE ISTHST I `---��— i rwy+�ww*+Gwv j I r_ , J m U. X—Library Site to be u j Surplussed f V a o 1 < z y} � V NFirrHsr I5 _�; M;,__� �Sinwwr PbneeOA.An EIS Bo.gwy S..w T-..war Hanna ea,.oav IL j a�seLws.s�.Lr..wrL�..e+..a..aerrx�w J M M N K -A-awreRare..o.e I N H I -B.Anra tirr rv.nwAr 0-E. ApWl s j k vF O.S.r.rwR,or.e.A»n� i ,.I��A!v NFSrH P! ;5 i OjNs -E-S."T...T-- _ � F-S.�w Can rrwMmr ' i — � G-PM io-rnm.a.q AyNn"efi i ` 2 I 0lr5rLTweP...L r/Pnr Pgrtu Y IC ---- _—__— NC4hPrid.iN 4»e ViceA Z 1' I /VE y^'J7 .i-�--/ I-Colcai Pe.eroei law UceB Z J Calph AeR..aeIC N C � I ! N Rwr NAp.rgilLevY a Hgn/al Park -t.Re.eA.Se„e,..w EeaW aM NephbnDorirood 'o Cen1a I w.S—p.L I I N-FYns.Lme L:cq.t.Rrn.el I 0-NE Ipn MeelE.eevn Ynwcamwe � I kM AoLM.P..Yr Pnpw NE�M S1 P-uM wE.Mt—v C.w Aa S—A..P..aehyw -Nwlw(�a Ave NE.Geen Canecllae 9bnlrW R.I,I• CommwlityhEcoromic D.vlloypNllt �.paeamL..Je.Prr.m Cm�.e.m .ter ear •r+... w_ our wl.o,N...larl.o.y o..an.P.q O ,R—H—QAJnuMYO.ReUPro V DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 3 Exhibit 2. Conceptual Master Plan Sunset Terrace Master Site Plan ,I w 4I Z I / s ,V,.. z 11 14, 16/17 ?/ 5 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK �\ G y�F 6n ?� \ Th s 7/8 / KEY / RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE COMMUNITY —— SITE AREA 0 50 too 100 N RENTON SUNSET AREA MSP Jos 2014 M I T H U N DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 4 General Notes on Master Plan Maps and Calculations A best fit CAD base map was used for the Conceptual Master Plan; however additional field review/survey of rights of way and boundaries, at the time of Site Plan applications would be needed. Parcel acres for properties along SR 900 assume dedication of ROW per the 2011 SR 900 Conceptual Plan and 0 feet front yard setback. Lot depths are 120 feet east of Harrington Avenue NE consistent with the VEER site plan for Lots 9/10, and 130 west of Harrington Avenue NE to allow for sufficient depths of buildings that have underbuilding parking, odd geometries and a small setback from Sunset Lane NE. However, it may be possible to reduce the lot depth in some areas west of Harrington Avenue NE and increase the park site. This would have an effect on individual site calculations for density and building/lot coverage but cumulatively the results should be similar. Proposed and Existing Land Use The existing property (as of 2012) contained 110 dwelling units, with 100 units on Sunset Terrace public housing site itself. Since that time a Demolition and Disposition Permit was granted by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, and site plan, construction, and building permits were issued by the City of Renton to allow demolition of some of the public housing units for the 15,000 square foot library currently under construction and a future mixed use building. On the whole, the proposed Master Plan would create additional multifamily housing, park space, public library space, and retail space on the property. Proposed residential land includes apartments and attached townhomes that are generally between two and four stories in height, extending to five and six stories along SR 900. Proposed commercial space would equal between 19,500-59,000 square feet, with 15,000 square feet consisting of a newly relocated Renton Highlands Library (this use has already been permitted and is under construction), and the rest consisting of retail or office space depending on market needs. See Exhibit 3 for a summary of total development proposed with the Master Plan. Exhibit 3. Summary of Total Development Proposed in Master Plan Total Master Commercial Plan Square Feet Land Area Dwelling Location (acres) Units Multifamily and Mixed Use Sites (Sites D, E,G, H, I,J) 5.07 544 4,500-39,500 Library(Site K) 15,000 Sunset Park and Regional Stormwater Facility(Sites L 2.99 - and M) NE loth and Sunset Lane Loop (Site N and O) 1.70 - Total 9.76 544 19,500-59,000 Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton, Renton Housing Authority,BERK 2014 In addition to the proposed Master Plan approval, several sites would contain buildings exceeding the maximum height of the zone. Therefore, a conditional use permit is proposed and evaluated in this application as well. The current zone height maximum is shown in Exhibit 4. The proposed height maximum is shown in Exhibit 5. See also Exhibit 6 summarizing the proposed land area, units, and building height by specific location. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 Exhibit 4. Sunset Terrace Current Zone Height Maximum Sunset Terrace Potential Building Envelope Study z v ., NEIKG K,8 �. ysT 5��5E n r. a RENTON SUNSET AREA MSP M I T H U N DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10,2014 6 Exhibit S. Potential Building Envelope for Maximum Height in Zone Sunset Terrace Potential Building Envelope Study *Pl Jw �NE *y,. R IGHBORHOOD PARK. 7pT S S�recvoae ::. t - '" RENTON SUNSET AREA MSP:FINAL DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW M I T H U N DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 6 Exhibit 6. Summary Table of Proposed Land Use: Property Area, Total Units, Building Height Analysis L QQ a c -c =o E E M W 0�1 7 y 7 L o COa, E E a LL i � .c cxo � �o c a) 0- a c s s s a co +_ 0. v co c o4 Location N a` � F° � a` 2 tv = C7 H = Neighborhood Site D/Sunset Terrace Apartments/Site 5 CV 0.54 43 50.0 50 - Neighborhood Site J/Sunset Terrace Site 6/7/ Building C CV 0.81 111 58.0 50 8.0 Neighborhood Site I/Sunset Terrace Site 7/8/ Building B CV 1.13 201 62.0 50 12.0 Neighborhood Site H/Sunset Terrace Site 9/Building A CV .95 118 68.0 60. 8.0 Neighborhood Site K/ Renton Highlands Library Sunset CV See 9 27.0 60 (33.0) Terrace/Site 10 Neighborhood Site G /Sunset Park East(Piha) CV 1.09 61 48.0 50 (2.0) Townhomes and Apartments/ Master Plan Property 11 Neighborhood Site E/Sunset Park West Townhomes/ R-14 0.55 10 30.0 30 Master Plan Properties 14, 16 and 17 Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton, Renton Housing Authority,BERK 2014 Neighborhood Site D / Master Plan Property 5 / Building D Proposed Development The site is approximately 0.54 acres within the Center Village (CV) Zone. Proposed for the site is a four- story multi-family building containing 43 apartment units. Future buildings would orient towards Sunset Lane N.E., with a direct sidewalk connection. Parking is anticipated to be under building. Construction is anticipated in 2017. Existing Conditions There are currently two single story wood-framed apartment buildings containing XX units. The property also contains ornamental landscaping. Neighborhood Sites I and J/ Master Plan Properties 6/7 and 7/8/ Buildings B and C Proposed Development Site 6/7 is approximately 0.81 acres in the CV Zone. A five-story multi-family project with associated structured parking is proposed for the site. The building will contain a total of 111 residential units. The proposed building height is 58 feet with a request for a modification from the allowable building height of 50 feet for multi-family residential buildings to the proposed height of 58 feet. The additional height is necessary in order to develop enough residential units to make the project viable. (Note: There is capacity to add commercial uses in the Master Plan should future applicants so choose; to promote mixed uses, the maximum height allowed by zone is 60 feet, and in that case, no height modification would be needed.) DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 8 Both pedestrian access and vehicular access to structured parking on the site would be provided off Sunset Lane NE. Common open space would be provided and may include a plaza space over the structured parking area, and at the first residential story level. Such a common use space could have views to the west towards Lake Washington and the Olympic Mountains for all residents in the building. Private open space would most likely be provided through private decks. However, at the time of Site Plan Review, the Director may approve modifications such as a percentage of units that may have alternative private open space standards if meeting the overall intent of design standards and other criteria at 4-3-100(F) and RMC 4-9-250(D). It is estimated that building construction for this phase will start in October of 2016 and completion of construction is targeted for March of 2018. Approvals necessary for this project will consist of Site Plan Review and the required building permits. Site 7/8 is approximately 1.13 acres and lies in the CV Zone. A six-story multi-family project with associated structured parking is proposed for the site. The building will contain a total of 201 residential units. In order to develop enough residential units to make the project viable, there is also a request for a modification to the allowable building height to extend from the standard 50 feet to 62 feet. (Note: There is capacity to add commercial uses in the Master Plan should future applicants so choose; to promote mixed uses, the maximum height allowed by zone is 60 feet, and a smaller height modification would be needed.) Vehicular access to structured parking on the site would be provided at multiple points along Sunset Lane N.E. Pedestrian access to a residential lobby would also occur from Sunset Lane NE. Common open space would be provided indoor and outdoor. Located in the Renton Highlands like most sites in this area there are good territorial views at floors higher than immediate adjacent development. Common use plazas would be provided for use by all residents that live in the building. The plazas will be orientated south and will take advantage of extensive territorial views in that direction because of the way the surrounding topography drops off to the south.The City may allow substitutions of common open space in light of the public park provided adjacent to the properties. See RMC 4-1-240 for Common Open Space Substitutions. This would likely require a Fee in Lieu of Common Open Space. This would be addressed in future Site Plan Review applications. Private open space is required. A preponderance of the future dwelling units will have private open space such as in the form of decks. However, at the time of Site Plan Review, the Director may approve modifications such as a percentage of units that may have alternative private open space standards if meeting the overall intent of design standards and other criteria at 4-3-100(F) and RMC 4-9-250(D). The proposed building will be constructed in a single phase. The year of construction is anticipated to be 2016. Existing Conditions Currently there are eight two-story multi-family residential buildings on the sites containing XX units. Besides the residential structures, the sites contain mainly lawn, with few trees and sidewalks connecting entranceways to the sidewalk along Sunset Lane NE. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 9 Neighborhood Sites H & K/ Master Plan Property 9/10/ Building A Proposed Development The site is approximately 0.95 acres and zoned CV. A six-story mixed-use building with associated structured parking is proposed for the site. The building will contain a total of 118 residential units and about 19,500 square feet of commercial space including a 15,000 square foot King County Library facility. The proposed building height is 68 feet with a request for modification to building height above the 60 feet that is allowed for buildings that contain commercial space. This request is made necessary because roughly 40%of the site will be comprised of the one story library structure. In order to develop enough residential units on the remaining 60% of the site to make the project viable the additional height is necessary. Common open space is required. The City may allow substitutions of common open space in light of the public park provided adjacent to the properties. See RMC 4-1-240 for Common Open Space Substitutions.This would likely require a Fee in Lieu of Common Open Space.This would be addressed in future Site Plan Review applications. Private open space is required. Most future dwelling units will have private open space such as in the form of decks. However, at the time of Site Plan Review, the Director may approve modifications such as a percentage of units that may have alternative private open space standards if meeting the overall intent of design standards and other criteria at 4-3-100(F) and RMC 4-9-250(D). It is estimated that building construction for this phase will start in October of 2014 and completion of construction is targeted for March of 2016. Existing Conditions Currently there are three two-story multi-family residential buildings on the sites. Besides the residential structures, the sites contain mainly lawn, with few trees and sidewalks connecting entranceways to the sidewalks along Sunset Lane NE and Harrington Ave NE. Neighborhood Site G / Sunset Park East (Piha) Townhomes and Apartments / Master Plan Property 11 Proposed Development The Sunset Park Townhomes East (Piha Site) site is approximately 1.09 acres in size and zoned CV. The proposed development consists of three multi-story, multi-family residential buildings with a below grade parking structure. Future plans include 3 buildings containing a total of 61 multi-family units with a mix of 1, 2, and 3-bedroom units. The buildings range in height from 2 to 4 stories, and the overall proposed building height is 48 feet. Proposed off-site improvements include a new sidewalk along Sunset Lane NE. Existing Conditions The site is currently undeveloped lawn, with a small paved portion at the northern corner. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 10 Neighborhood Site E/ Sunset Park West Townhomes / Master Plan Properties 14, 16 and 17 Proposed Development This site is approximately 0.55 acres. The proposed development consists of two, two-story, multi- family residential buildings with associated surface parking. These buildings contain ten townhome dwelling units. The proposed building height is 30 feet. Existing Conditions The site currently contains three, one-story, wood-framed houses and three sheds. With the exception of the structures, existing on-site surface coverage is largely lawn. 1.3 Transportation/Circulation The Master Plan assumes future NE Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) improvements to a "complete streets" standard where feasible. Master Plan lots fronting SR 900 have a frontage line consistent with future improvements. A loop road would occur along Sunset Lane NE and would encircle the Park. Along the library and mixed- use building space, the lane could be specially paved and serve as a plaza for special events. The width of this roadway is 53 feet. The Sunset Area "green connections" would be implemented per the Sunset Area Surface Water Master Plan such as on Harrington Avenue NE that traverses the Master Plan site. The City is considering street reclassifications and two new street sections for roads that have 60-foot rights of way presently: Green Collector and Neighborhood Collector. See the preliminary Exhibit 7. Based on a review by CH2MHill, the 60 foot right of way is consistent with the "Green Connections" cross section in the Sunset Area Surface Water Master Plan. However, the Green Connections can only be implemented in some locations and therefore a 60 foot cross-section for a Neighborhood Collector is also proposed. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 11 Exhibit 7. Street Reclassification Map— Pending—See Hand Mark Up RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM Exhibit 9.Street Reclassification Map—Needs Amendment t i 0. i > E _ + Proposed Sunset Area Street Classification ow.oe�reoi� [�swtlA,e,eow,aw jN —(�-cunni N.ow— Eommunity 6 Economic D—loOmem u MeD—mNNtt.NA-g-Av.NE Ntl 12M S1 rfwfetlmn ..Ann wCuwvw H U r -1NtaewmnwwnE—..A-NE"NE1]MS1 GREEN C oNWEGTIonI r..C4n..»Mw.A..sw.wAA 93' nl..��hda.�od. Cctleapr 6oE INTERNAL DRAFT June 4,2014 11 DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 12 Sunset Park and Regional Stormwater Detention Development Program The new park will be expanded in size from 2.1 acres to 2.99 acres. Proposed park components include a performance space, a child-friendly water feature, play area, picnic area, restroom building, fitness equipment, walking loop, integration of art, passive open space, plazas, and rain gardens. Both the park and the regional storm water facility require maintenance access and load/unload areas. The maintenance access and load/unload zone will be located on the north side of the future park along (extended) NE 10th. An internal walkway system will be incorporated into the park however a perimeter park sidewalk will not be included. The future park and regional storm water facility will provide the public distinct opportunities for the public to engage in environmental and recreation opportunities in an urban setting. Specific amenities will be identified through the ongoing public park conceptual master planning process. The regional stormwater facility will be constructed in advance of the future park but is dependent upon securing land rights. The estimated time for the stormwater facility completion is June 30, 2015. Park construction is contingent upon fee simple property acquisition, building demolition, ROW vacations, and lot line adjustments. The earliest park construction is likely to occur is 2017 with a 2018 anticipated completion date. The regional stormwater facility in Sunset Park will address flow control for SR 900 roadway water quality treatment. Onsite developments would provide for their own water quality treatment. The regional facility in the Park is designed for SR 900 and is not designed to receive any stormwater from the Master Plan area, and per the grant funding, this site cannot be used for mitigation. Existing Conditions Currently,there are one to two-story apartment buildings on the planned park area. Drainage and Impervious Surface Best Management Practices See the Reevaluation and Addendum under separate cover. In general the Master Plan sites together with other proposed housing sites in the vicinity would exceed the impervious area estimates of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), April 2011. To maintain the prior impervious surface estimates of the FEIS, additional best management practices (BMPS) are recommended to apply to Master Plan sites including more permeable sidewalks and other practices such as bioretention for the roadway areas and some raingardens or other practices for the buildings. Utilities (piaceiwicier tur now) [To be provided by City following Master Plan review meeting; also see correspondence regarding sewer facilities under separate cover.] DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 13 Phasing Development would be phased between 2014 and 2017 as shown on Exhibit 8. Note: Need to understand utility phasing for road phasing. Exhibit 8. Phasing Phasing:Year of Neh'd Site Name Block Identifier Construction RHA Sunset Terrace-Sunset Area Replacement and Affordable Housing Units D Sunset Terrace Apartments Sunset Terrace Lot 5 2017 E Sunset Park West Townhomes Node Lots TBD Sunset Park East(Piha)Townhomes and G Apartments NE 10th Site TBD Other Sunset Terrace Public and Private Projects H Sunset Terrace Dev. Building A Sunset Terrace Lot 9 2014 1 Sunset Terrace Dev. Building B Sunset Terrace Lots 7/8 2015 J Sunset Terrace Dev. Building C Sunset Terrace Lots 6/7 2016 K Renton Highlands Library Sunset Terrace Lot 10 2014 L Regional Stormwater Facility Sunset Terrace Lot 12 2015 M Sunset Park Sunset Terrace Lot 12 2017 N Sunset Lane Loop Improvements Sunset Lane NE TBD 0 NE 10th Street Extension, Improvements 2800-2900 NE 10th St TBD Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton, Renton Housing Authority,BERK 2014 2.0 DESIGN AND CODE COMPLIANCE 2.1 DensitV Many sites in the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area propose higher densities above the maximum density allowed in their associated zone. See Exhibit 9. • Neighborhood Site D, Sunset Terrace Apartments, Master Plan Property 5:The proposed density is 79.4 dwelling units per acre. It does not exceed the maximum density range for the CV zone. • Neighborhood Site J, Building C, Master Plan Property 617:The proposed density of the project is 137.0 dwelling units per acre. The maximum outright density allowed in the CV zone is 80 dwelling units per acre. • Neighborhood Site 1, Building B, Master Plan Property 718: The proposed density of the project is 177.0 dwelling units per acre. The maximum outright density allowed in the CV zone is 80 dwelling units per acre. • Neighborhood Sites H and K, Building A, Master Plan Properties 9110:The proposed density of the project is 124.2 dwelling units per acre. The maximum outright density allowed in the CV zone is 80 dwelling units per acre. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 14 • Neighborhood Site G, Sunset Park East(Piha) Townhomes and Apartments, Master Plan Property 11: The proposed density is 55.8 dwelling units per acre. This is below the zone's maximum density. • Neighborhood Site E, Sunset Park West Townhomes, Master Plan Properties 14, 16 and 17:The proposed density is 18.2 dwelling units per acre.This is .2 units over the maximum allowed density of 18 dwelling units per acre in the R-14 zone. However the definition of net density in RMC Chapter 4-11 allows the City to round down when fractional density numbers are less than 0.5. Viewed in context of the overall Sunset Terrace Site which since 2011 has been planned comprehensively as a coordinated mixed use redevelopment project with park amenities, the density would equal about 65 units an acre, less than the 80 units per acre maximum, that are components of the original site, the density would be well within range. Exhibit 9. Summary of Sunset Terrace Site Density & _ G M .L £ N o T d O 0) Cr X O O t a > m L E a r +; •X T9 ' ^ to 0 4 0 Location a` o 0 Neighborhood Site D/Sunset Terrace Apartments/Site 5 0.54 43 79.4 80.0 (0.6) Neighborhood Site J/Sunset Terrace Site 6/7/Building C 0.81 111 137.0 80.0 57.0 Neighborhood Site I/Sunset Terrace Site 7/8/Building B 1.13 201 177.9 80.0 97.9 Neighborhood Sites H &K/Sunset Terrace Sites 9& 10/Building A 0.95 118 124.2 80.0 44.2 Neighborhood Site G/Sunset Park East(Piha)Townhomes and 1.09 61 55.8 80.0 (24.2) Apartments/Master Plan Property 11 Neighborhood Site E/Sunset Park West Townhomes/Master Plan 0.55 10 18.2 18.0 0.2 Properties 14, 16 and 17 7-7 Parking In general, the majority of parking spaces for the residential components will be accommodated primarily in below grade and partially below grade parking levels. Most of the proposed parking for individual sites are within the allowable range determined by Renton municipal code, except for Site 9/10, which needs an additional 7 parking spaces to meet the required minimum number of parking spaces. However, because the other sites propose parking spaces well over the required minimum number, there could be adequate parking for the master site plan as a whole. A Joint Parking Agreement could be developed prior to future site plan approval addressing any shared parking arrangements, provided parking is within 750 feet of the intended site (4-4-080(E)(3)). The following provides narrative description as well as a summary table of proposed parking at the individual sites. • Neighborhood Site D, Sunset Terrace Apartments, Master Plan Property 5:: Proposed parking includes one stall per unit, located below grade. 41 parking spaces are proposed for the site. • Neighborhood Site 1, Building C, Master Plan Property 617: Parking requirements for Site 6/7 will be accommodated on three levels of below grade structured parking. Residential parking in the CV DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 15 zone is to be provided at one stall per dwelling unit. It is anticipated that there will be 190 parking stalls in the project. • Neighborhood Site 1, Building B, Master Plan Property 718: Parking requirements for Site 7/8 will be accommodated on two levels of structured parking, one below grade and one partially below grade. Residential parking in the CV zone is to be provided at one stall per dwelling unit. It is anticipated that there will be 271 parking stalls in the project. • Neighborhood Sites H and K, Building A, Master Plan Properties 9110: Parking requirements for Site 9/10 will be accommodated on three levels of structured parking, one below grade, one partially below grade and one above grade. Residential parking in the CV zone is to be provided at one stall per dwelling unit. 51 parking spaces are proposed for the library and the remaining commercial space will be parked at a minimum of 2.5 stall/1000 square feet thus requiring 11 commercial parking stalls. It is anticipated that there will be a total of 182 parking stalls in the project. o Library: There appears to be a mis-print in the code requiring 40 stalls per 1,000 square feet of cultural space, but the likely required rate was intended to be 4 per 1,000 square feet. A Director's interpretation was completed for this in a separate site plan review. • Neighborhood Site G, Sunset Park East(Piha) Townhomes and Apartments, Master Plan Property 11: Proposed parking includes one stall per unit that will be accommodated primarily below grade with some surface parking. 51 parking spaces are proposed for the site. • Neighborhood Site E, Sunset Park West Townhomes, Master Plan Properties 14, 16 and 17: Proposed parking for the sites includes 10 stalls, 1 per unit. Surface parking will be located to the north of the buildings to shield the parking from view. • Park: RMC4-4-080(F)(10) does not specify a parking standard for parks, and a Director decision would be needed; at this time it is understood that as a neighborhood park primarily serving adjacent development, walking is the primary mode of arriving at the park. Both the park and the regional storm water facility require maintenance access and load/unload areas which have been identified and located through the master planning process. Exhibit 10. Proposed Parking and Allowed Range 'o o .'_ -o a, Y -0 � a (L) M N LJ > > ? 0 CL o m 0 0 Cr �o >E o x oz v a°Z s O te G! N _ M CL ^ p in � 3 a N = U to U u a Z a. Site 5 Residential(low 43 41 CV Low income .25-1.75 per DU 10.75 75.25 income) Allowed Range: 10.75 75.2S None Site 6/7 Residential ill 190 CV Attached dwellings within all other ill 194.25 zones/ 1-1.75 per DU Allowed Range: ill 194.25 None Site 7/8 Residential 201 271 CV Attached dwellings within all other 201 351.75 zones/ 1-1.75 per DU Allowed Range: 201 351.75 None DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 16 D o c v a c -0 v a " c N 3 N f0 O C j ` a T a > an+ c a _ra CU o_ _ v £ -0 x ma a oZ c aiO Gl O7 te $ a T O7 Ci C C N T _ FCA a N cc U 2 V U U Q Z a Site 9/10 Residential 118 182 Cv Attached dwellings within all other 118 207 zones/ 1-1.75 per DU Library (15,000 sf) Cultural:4 per 1000 sf 60 60 Commercial(4,489 sf) Retail(2.5 stall/1,000 sci ft),Services 11 11 (3/1000 sci ft),Office(2/1000 s ft) Allowed Range: 189 278 Need 7 Site 11 Residential(low- 61 56 Cv Low income .25-1.75 per DU 15.25 98 income) Allowed Range: 15.25 98 None Site 14,16 Residential(town 10 10 R14 Low income .25-1.75 per DU 2.5 17.5 and 17 homes) Allowed Range: 2.5 17.5 None 11_ot Coverage The Renton Zoning Code includes standards for building cover in the CV and R-14 zones and maximum impervious surface levels in the R-14 zone. Based on preliminary analysis of individual conceptual site plans prepared by property owners (not formally under consideration at this stage), it appears to achieve the development goals including structured parking, All sites meet lot coverage standards, except for Sites H/K, I and J individually. However, collectively, with the Park site the CV zone sites do meet the CV zone requirements, and is consistent with the overall Master Plan approach to the sites. Site E meets the maximum 85% impervious coverage with only 53% in coverage. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 17 Exhibit 11. Lot Coverage Analysis Total Bldg Area Total Lot/Site Footprint(s) Lot Coverage Zone Site Letter Component Bldg Letter Building Name Zone Total Acres Area(scl ft) (sq ft Percent Standard' Difference D 5 D Sunset Terrace Apartments CV 0.54 23,587 11,250 48% 65% -27.3% 75% E 16/17 Sunset Park Townhomes West R-14 0.55 23,958 6,000 25% None -40.0% Sunset Park Townhomes East G 11 (Piha Site) CV 1.09 47,480 22,105 47% 65% -28.4% 75% Sunset Terrace Developments Lots H 9/10 A 9/10 CV 0.95 41,397 37,775 91% 65% _ Includes 15K K Li bra ry I i bra ry 75% Sunset Terrace Developments Lots I 7/8 B 7/8 CV 1.13 49,223 39,950 81% 65% _ 75% Sunset Terrace Developments Lots J 6/7 C 6/7 CV 0.81 35,284 26,557 75% 65% 0.3% 75% M 12 Sunset Neighborhood Park CV 2.99 130,244 0% 65% -75.0% L including Stormwater Facility 75% Total All Master Plan Lots,excluding Rights of Way 8.06 351,173 143,637 41% Total CV Zone Only 7.51 327,215 137,637 42% 'CV Zone:65%of total lot area or 75%if parking is provided within the building or withi n an on-site parking garage. Design The Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Master Site Plan is required to comply with Renton residential and urban design standards. The purpose of Residential Design and Open Space Standards (Renton Municipal Code 4-2-115) is to implement policies established in the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, enhance quality of life by encouraging new residential development to produce beautiful neighborhoods of well-designed homes, and to mitigate the impacts of density for the neighborhood and the surrounding community. These standards would apply to Sites 14, 16 and 17, which is in R-14 Zoning. Urban Design Regulations (Renton Municipal Code 4-3-100) are established in accordance with and to implement policies established in the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Renton Comprehensive Plan. These standards would apply to all other sites in the Master Plan, zoned Center Village (CV), with the exception of Site 14, 16 and 17. The following design standards will be used to evaluate the project at the time of Site Plan Review: 4-2-115 Residential Design and Open Space Standards 1. Site Design LOT CONFIGURATION: Variety in the configuration of lots enhances the image of variety of housing stock and helps minimize perceptions of monotony. GARAGES: The minimization of the visual impact of garages contributes to creating communities that are oriented to people and pedestrians, as opposed to automobiles. 2. Open Space OPEN SPACE: Open space is a significant element in the development of livable communities and creates opportunities for good health. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 18 3. Residential Design PRIMARY ENTRY. Homes with a visually prominent front entry foster the sense that the community is oriented to pedestrians. Features like porches and stoops at the front entry provide opportunity for social interaction and can contribute to a sense of place for residents. Additionally, porches work to minimize the appearance of bulk by breaking up the facade. FACADE MODULATION: The modulation of facades creates an appearance of variety, as well as visual breaks that help to create visual interest. WINDOWS AND DOORS: Windows and front doors are an integral part of the architectural character of a home and when they incorporate architectural elements of the home, they contribute to the overall balance and integration of the building form. Additionally, when they represent a significant amount of the facade of a home, they amplify the sense that the community is oriented to people. SCALE, BULK, AND CHARACTER: Residential communities are intended for people and homes that have appropriate scale and bulk contribute to the sense of orientation to people. Variety in the character of homes helps to minimize visual monotony while helping to foster a perception of uniqueness of place. ROOFS: Roof forms and profiles are an important component in the architectural character of homes and contribute to the massing, scale, and proportion of the home. Roofs also provide opportunity to create variety, especially for homes of the same model. EAVES: The design of eaves and overhangs act as unifying elements in the architectural character of a home. When sized adequately and used consistently, they work to create desirable shadows that help to create visual interest especially from blank, unbroken wall planes. ARCHITECTURAL DETAILING:Architectural detailing contributes to the visual appeal of a home and the community. It helps to create a desirable human scale and a perception of a quality well designed home. MATERIALS AND COLOR: The use of a variety of materials and color contributes to the sense of diversity of housing stock in the community. 4-3-100 Urban Design for CV Zone 1.Site Design and Building Location BUILDING LOCATION AND ORIENTATION: To ensure visibility of businesses and to establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. To organize buildings for pedestrian use and so that natural light is available to other structures and open space. To ensure an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses,and increase privacy for residential uses. BUILDING ENTRIES: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. TRANSITION TO SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT. To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing neighborhoods are preserved. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 19 SERVICE ELEMENT LOCATION AND DESIGN: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. GATEWAYS: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City, special design features and architectural elements at gateways should be provided. While gateways should be distinctive within the context of the district, they should also be compatible with the district inform and scale. 2. Parking and Vehicular Access SURFACE PARKING: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To maintain a contiguous and uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating, and/or eliminating vehicular access off streets. 3. Pedestrian Environment PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians, that is safe and convenient, enhances the pedestrian environment, and provides a way for pedestrians to walk from one location to another without having to drive their vehicle. PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of year-round activities, under typical seasonal weather conditions. 4. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space RECREATION AREAS AND COMMON OPEN SPACE: To ensure that areas for both passive and active recreation are available to residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient locations. To create usable and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and to promote pedestrian activity on streets particularly at street corners. S. Building Architectural Design BUILDING CHARACTER AND MASSING: To ensure that buildings are not bland and so that they appear to be at a human scale, as well as to ensure that all sides of a building which can be seen by the public are visually interesting. GROUND LEVEL DETAILS: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human-scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. BUILDING ROOF LINES: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. BUILDING MATERIALS: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time and encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings, as well as to encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. 6.Signage In addition to the City's standard sign regulations, developments within Urban Design Districts C and D are also subject to the additional sign restrictions found in RMC 4-4- DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 20 100G, urban design sign area regulations. Modifications to the standard requirements found in RMC 4-4-100G are possible for those proposals that can comply with the Design District criteria found in RMC 4-3-100F, Modification of Minimum Standards. For proposals unable to meet the modification criteria, a variance is required. 7. Lighting To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. 1.0 FUTURE PERMITS Most immediately, the City is intending to consider a Master Plan per RMC 4-9-200. For each Master Plan site, a number of current and future permits are also anticipated. See Exhibit 12. Additionally, in association with the Master Plan approval, a conditional use permit to exceed height standards consistent with RMC 4-9-030 is proposed. Interpretations of cumulative density in light of the park area, and the Director's determination regarding parking for the Sunset Park site are also being addressed in association with the Master Plan. The Reevaluation and Addendum may lead to revisions of the ROD and Planned Action Ordinance. [Confirm following staff review of reevaluation and utilities analysis.] Other permits and approvals would follow such as lot line adjustments, right of way dedications and easements, phased / detailed site plans and associated design modifications where appropriate. Last, building and construction permits would be sought. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 21 Exhibit 12.Matrix of Permits Approvals and Permits Summer 2014 Future Permits Permits with Site Plan Review C c « c h Q C a N li �c c C a o 0 o v c c c aiS o a u m ¢ m u c ua+ is c c c w p v `c° 3 m Q u .. y m _ .. m ' m y z 0 A o -0 E 3 '-m E a '— O o m o -T c 2 > w r c ¢ m a c O u y > L' o. a .. 3 m v a Y a a > cu o ¢ 6 m v cc 0 N v f v a = c a c Z z a0c ¢ ¢ o ' c � r � g CO u Site Project Name %+ RHA Sunset Terrace-Sunset Area Replacement and Affordable Housing Units D Sunset Terrace Apartments X X X X X X E Sunset Park West Townhomes X X X X X X X X G Sunset Park East(Piha)Townho_mes and Apa .Sunset ._..._...__ ... .._.....-.._....... _......_._......_-- _....._.........._. __ ......__.._..__ _ .. _._.__..- _-._ H Sunset Terrace Dev.Building X X X X X X X X X X X I Sunset Terrace Dev.Building B X X X X X X X X X X X X J Sunset Terrace Dev.Building C X X X X X X X X X X X X K Renton Highlands Library X X X X Not Applicable:Already approved L Regional S_tor_m_waterFacility X _ X X M Sunset Park X X X X N_ Sunset Lane Loop Improvements _ _ X_ X X X O�NE 10th Street Extension,Improvements X _ X X X Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton, Renton Housing Authority,BERK 2014 DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 22 MASTER PLAN COMPLIANCE Exhibit 13 presents an analysis of the review criteria for approval of a Master Site Plan at RMC 4-9-200. Exhibit 13. Master Plan Review Criteria Evaluation Evaluation 1. Purpose:These criteria provide general guidance for an Comment noted. applicant in developing a site,but are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation. 2. Level of Detail: a. Master Plans: For master plan applications,the Comment noted. Administrator will evaluate compliance with the review criteria at a level of detail appropriate for master plans. Master plans will be evaluated for general compliance with the criteria and to ensure that nothing in the master plan will preclude development of a site plan in full compliance with the criteria. b.Site Plans: For site plan applications,the Administrator Comment noted. will analyze the plan in detail and evaluate compliance with the specific requirements discussed below. 3.Criteria:The Administrator must find a proposed project See below. to be in compliance with the following: a.Compliance and Consistency:Conformance with plans, See below. policies, regulations and approvals, including: i.Comprehensive Plan:The Comprehensive Plan, its The Master Plan promotes a mixed use redevelopment elements,goals,objectives,and policies,especially those with open space and civic amenities.The Master Plan of the applicable land use designation;the Community would advance the City's Center Village(CV)concept in the Design Element;and any applicable adopted Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. It would serve as an Neighborhood Plan; incentive for other redevelopment opportunities near the study area.Anticipated growth would help the City meet its 2031 housing and employment targets. It would fulfill the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy. ii.Applicable land use regulations; The Master Plan proposed uses are allowed per the CV zone and R-14 zone.The Master Plan is inconsistent with maximum height limits of the CV zone in order to allow for a larger Sunset Park and a viable development;a conditional use permit is sought to ensure the overall intent of the CV zone and compatibility with surrounding development is upheld. On an individual site basis,some master plan blocks would exceed maximum density or lot coverage standards; however,looked at cumulatively as intended within the original site being conceptually planned(Sunset Terrace public housing site),the maximum density and lot coverage would not be exceeded. A parking interpretation is needed for the Park as a DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 23 Criteria Evaluation neighborhood facility where nonmotorized travel should predominate.A joint parking agreement is needed between sites H and I (Buildings A and B/Sites 7/8 and 9). Setbacks along street frontages would be administratively approved for 0 feet instead of 10 feet,as allowed in RMC 4-2-120A. iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development The Reevaluation and Addendum validate the original Agreements;and impact analysis and mitigation measures for the slightly larger amount of development included in the Master Plan.Some adjustments to the total future development allowed in the ROD and the Planned Action Ordinance may be needed. (Pending) iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design Design standard compliance will be a focus of future site regulations located in RMC 3-1n0. plan reviews. However,design regulations important for the height conditional use permit are described in Section 5.0 below. b.Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding See below. properties and uses,including: i.Structures: Restricting overscale structures and See Section 5.0 below. overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site; ii.Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages A loop circulation system using Sunset Lane allows for local between uses,streets, walkways and adjacent properties; serving traffic to access the multifamily and mixed use properties from the north.The street sections and onsite internal pathways are intended to create a pedestrian- friendly atmosphere with wide sidewalks and landscaping. iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating,designing and All Master Plan sites are subject to the City's parking, screening storage areas, utilities,rooftop equipment, loading,and storage area requirements; screening and loading areas,and refuse and recyclables to minimize reducing views from surrounding properties will be views from surrounding properties; considered during specific site plan reviews. iv.Views:Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of The mixed use and multifamily buildings, particularly those maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural fronting SR 900 will provide for territorial views.Also, features; design regulations important for the height conditional use permit are described in Section 5.0 below. v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions Landscaping in public spaces and on building sites will be between development and surrounding properties to employed to provide transitions between development reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy,and generally and enhance the project's appearance;this topic will be enhance the appearance of the project; and more specifically reviewed during site plan review. vi. Lighting:Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and This topic will be considered during specific site plan glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to reviews. adjacent properties and streets. c.On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, See below. including: DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 24 Criteria Evaluation i.Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise The Master Plan includes an arrangement of buildings reduction by building placement,spacing and orientation; around the Sunset Park to reduce noise.See also the Reevaluation and Addendum regarding noise. ii.Structure Scale:Consideration of the scale of proposed Design regulations important for the height conditional structures in relation to natural characteristics,views and use permit are described in Section 5.0 below. vistas,site amenities,sunlight, prevailing winds,and pedestrian and vehicle needs; iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by See also the Reevaluation and Addendum regarding retaining existing vegetation and soils, using topography to Impervious Surfaces. Maintaining the range of impervious reduce undue cutting and filling,and limiting impervious surfaces anticipated in the FEIS,April 2011 is surfaces;and recommended,and could be accomplished by additional best management practices(BMPS) including more permeable sidewalks and other practices such as bioretention for the roadway areas and some raingardens or other practices for the buildings. iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the Landscaping in public spaces and on building sites will be appearance of parking areas,to provide shade and privacy employed to provide transitions between development where needed,to define and enhance open spaces,and and enhance the project's appearance;this topic will be generally to enhance the appearance of the project. more specifically reviewed during site plan review. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. d.Access and Circulation:Safe and efficient access and See below. circulation for all users, including: i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on Most access will occur from the loop road,particularly side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto Sunset Lane rather than SR 900. arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and,when feasible,with adjacent properties; ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of The Master Plan proposes a loop road system that creates the internal circulation system,including the location, a more logical and seamless road pattern than exists design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access today. Pedestrian connections from the street to the points,drives, parking,turnarounds,walkways, bikeways, buildings will be provided.A complete streets vision will and emergency access ways; guide improvements to SR 900. iii. Loading and Delivery:Separating loading and delivery This topic will be reviewed with detailed Site Plan Review. areas from parking and pedestrian areas; iv.Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit,carpools and This topic will be reviewed with detailed Site Plan Review. bicycle facilities and access;and v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian This topic will be reviewed with detailed Site Plan Review. connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. e.Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as Sunset Park has been increased in size compared to prior distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate conceptual plans studied in the FEIS,April 2011. areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 25 Criteria Evaluation f.Views and Public Access:When possible,providing view Territorial views may be available from upper floors corridors to shorelines and Mt.Rainier,and incorporating particularly from buildings proposed for construction along public access to shorelines. SR 900.There are no shorelines in the vicinity. g. Natural Systems:Arranging project elements to protect There are no onsite critical areas. However, impervious existing natural systems where applicable. surfaces and stormwater best management practices are important to the redevelopment.See the Reevaluation and Addendum regarding Impervious Surfaces. Maintaining the range of impervious surfaces anticipated in the FEIS,April 2011 is recommended,and could be accomplished by additional best management practices (BMPS)including more permeable sidewalks and other practices such as bioretention for the roadway areas and some raingardens or other practices for the buildings. h.Services and Infrastructure: Making available public [Reserved—pending Utilities] services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. i. Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with See Section 1.6. development phases and estimated time frames,for phased projects. Source: BERK Consulting 2014 5.0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT COMPLIANCE Exhibit 14 evaluates the proposed increase in building height with the review criteria in RMC 4-9-030. Exhibit 14. Conditional Use Permit Review Criteria Evaluation Criteria Evaluation 1.Consistency with Plans and Regulations The proposed use shall be compatible with the general Requests for exceeding the building height limits is goals,objectives,policies and standards of the consistent with the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Plan. Comprehensive Plan,the zoning regulations and any other When the proposed height is considered in context of the plans, programs, maps or ordinances of the City of Renton. entire redevelopment plan area the average height proposed for development is well below 60'. Sunset Terrace has been identified as an area where it is desirable to develop residential uses to a density greater than currently exists. 2.Appropriate Location The proposed location shall not result in the detrimental The Master Plan would introduce building heights of 5-6 overconcentration of a particular use within the City or stories along NE Sunset Boulevard, which would exceed within the immediate area of the proposed use.The the current maximum height allowed by zoning. This proposed location shall be suited for the proposed use. would increase the visual prominence of development in the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area, particularly given a.location Criteria: Proximity of arterial streets which the location of future buildings on Sites H, I,and J along NE have sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic generated Sunset Boulevard,which is ahigh-traffic street. by the development. Developments are encouraged to locate in areas served by transit. The Reevaluation Alternative would also, however, include a larger amount of park space in the Redevelopment Area, which would provide a substantial amenity to area DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 26 Criteria Evaluation residents and reduce the overall visual impression of height and bulk from viewers located further northward of the loop road. For park users, who would be closer to the proposed buildings, increased height could create a perception for park uses of being surrounded by buildings looming over them, depending on design treatments. There would be increased height and bulk from the perspective of pedestrians on NE Sunset Boulevard. Thus small adjustments to reduce height and bulk related to the increased height and intensity of the structures would reduce impacts. Current city design standards address some aspects of this through standards addressing building modulation and roofline variation; additional mitigation is recommended to incorporate shallow upper story setbacks. Increased height at the southern end of the Redevelopment Area would have the potential to slightly increase the length of shadows cast on the interior park to the north. However, reconfiguration of the park to increase its size as part of the updated Master Site Plan process would ameliorate this to some degree, and the application of design standards such as upper story setbacks would further reduce shading impact from increased building height. The "rim" of the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment area is particularly well suited to the greater density/height proposed as it is immediately adjacent to Sunset Boulevard, a major arterial and State highway capable of accommodating the traffic generated by the proposed project. See also the transportation analysis in the Reevaluation and Addendum which indicated relatively little difference among the Master Plan and previously reviewed alternatives in terms of traffic. 3. Effect on Adjacent Properties The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result See Table Section 2.The subject sites exceeding height are in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent along SR 900. The zones facing these lots are not single property. family or multifamily zoned, but rather commercially a.Effect on Adjacent or Abutting Properties:Building zoned. heights shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent and abutting property.When a building in excess of the maximum height is proposed adjacent to or abutting a lot designated R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14 or RM-F,then the setbacks shall be equivalent to the requirements of the adjacent residential zone if the setback standards exceed the requirements of the Commercial Zone. 4.Compatibility The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and The proposed development would be among the taller character of the neighborhood. developments in the vicinity until such time as other properties will be redeveloped to meet the more intensive vision of the CV zone. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 27 Criteria Evaluation S.Parking Adequate parking is,or will be made,available. A parking interpretation is needed for the Park as a neighborhood facility where nonmotorized travel should predominate. A joint parking agreement is needed between sites H and I (Buildings A and B/Sites 7/8 and 9). 6.Traffic The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and See the transportation analysis in the Reevaluation and pedestrians and shall mitigate potential effects on the Addendum which indicated relatively little difference surrounding area. among the Master Plan and previously reviewed alternatives in terms of traffic. 7.Noise, Light and Glare Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the proposed The Master Plan includes an arrangement of buildings use shall be evaluated and mitigated. around the Sunset Park to reduce noise. See also the Reevaluation and Addendum regarding noise. 8.Landscaping Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by Landscaping in public spaces and on building sites will be buildings,paving,or critical areas.Additional landscaping employed to provide transitions between developments may be required to buffer adjacent properties from and enhance the project's appearance; this topic will be potentially adverse effects of the proposed use more specifically reviewed during site plan review. DISCUSSION DRAFT June 10, 2014 28 Sunset Neighborhood Park Master Plan Investing in Housing 0 .. Transportation Open House Meeting #2 Agenda Introduction Opening Remarks, City, Team Introductions City of Renton Open House Meeting #1 Summary HBB Brief Overview of three Concept Alternatives Preferred Concept Alternative Nearby Park Facilities City of Renton Park Schematic Plans ■Park Schematic Plans Overview HBB ■Questions and Answers Activity Schematic Plan Stations HBB Activity Summary Summary of Schematic Plan feedback HBB Next Steps HBB e {: June 18, 2014 Sunset Neighborhood Park Master Plan Investing in Housing 9 Jobs 0 Education 0 Health 0 Environment 0 Transportation Stakeholder Workshop Agenda Introduction Leslie Planned Action EIS & Park Master Plan Overview Leslie Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan November 2011 Site Analysis Overview Existing Conditions HBB Sun/Shade Analysis HBB Storm Water Facility CH21VI HILL Park Components Exercise HBB Park Components HBB 'irk Gli2lVlwtLz_ March 19, 2014 Sunset Neighborhood Park Master Plan Concept Plan Overview Investing Housing Jobs * Education . .. . . FEIS Scwset Area Preferred Community Framework Sunset Planned Action Park Concept Plan LEGEND Pedestrian Paths \ Community Garden f Plxa Area!Hardscape .....1 Hill r , r� �.._.. P a Seatwalls Play Area . Outdoor Reading Room Shaded Tables t FOUntaln ®� Community Garden Planting Beds °—' I E - Seatwalls <; ca Stage/Shaded Play Area I ` ® Pergola ¢ M o Net Climbing Structure/Multi-Age R t es room I Open Lawn Perfotmance Stage Concert �� Seating Stormwaterf 1 l raingarden Lif�r�r°,t �% a Highlands 's Li rary� tiL�t,,r , Plaza Area x Shaded Seating 4 `t ~• -Eating Areas y I `` p w g. Seatwalls M s A - i s6*E'v sGe*tr � � a ti ar Its E. . eG ��.. p� .r• LEGEND �e 1 = ` I inch=100 feet 4 tt (...' Pedestrian Intersection Pedestrian Connections "' '"`" - iFeet �''r,• Sunset BLVD Improvements 0 50 100 200 ' t tM'# Green Collector Arterial 'E.`.� Green Access Local Collector WIM Woonerf/Green alley Permeable Sidewalk 5 School/Civic ry • Mixed Use O Ra.deniw �•�.....�,. 7th St ® Parks enfon O community Garden 1'echnica C011cge •�•••EIS Boundary Q 301t GDQ 1200 HBB February 19, 2014 Sunset Neighborhood Park Master Plan Photo-Documentation Key Map Investing in Housing Jobs Education Health Environment Transportation i 1 16 15 14 13 12 Or 4 v _ .-- ° � Z 4 t � S O 16 2 `T Poorly 1 Facility `�To o ra tiic Gas Station draining soils k pin point 10 � 1 SUNSET 5 NEIGHOORHOOD 1-413 Well PARK _ ,gyp draining soils GY u Renton Topograpkic Higklands low point 12 Library 9 0 O 4 0 g F� 7 Ok T3us: Route 240 t.. Sus: Route 240 t J �— p .s March 19, 2014 Sunset Neighborhood Park Master Plan Climate Analysis Investing in Housing 0 JobsEducation . .. . . SUN & SHAPE CLIMATE eam Noon 3pm &pm Average Precipitation Summer �: ❑O � ' �D ; ❑O � � oo- � Q7� r r Junez1 �G! �, - _ r ' F 2 7' 01, 70' .,,\ -- -' \,,,l�� / Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec u 62 Average Temperature 80"F 70"F 60"F S rrv� /Fall - ((( 30 p g f March 2-1 _ 20'F �" Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dte September 2-1 �/ Pa yl igkt Lengtk 6pm 3pn+ Noon 9qw, —1 (} �. ❑= V Ely ❑= 1 , F 0 l C1,.1,IJTI. ,a-� aa � 3 �� Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dee 17 re Winter ) �``a, ' � � N, Average Hourly Winds December 2-1 ,x" `. N rtA i 1 " We East Sa th � � 1+ 4. t. 12t 30+ r pi, un t s � HBB 4 CH2 HIL, March 19, 2014 Investing in Housing • Jobs • Education • Health • Environment • Transportation u11 ; i . > Yak.:: ..,�. !NWAff A dY-r } A.•' 0 lip RL s iiiir r y µ Y � . s. F £ v 16 y ✓ o t 4 1 9 n x� y • , 7 7 M t F i r r r � i� f Y` �k � �Y3 • ... I / I ' ♦ .� i / � T - C ra �. I TT .�.��': 1Y"� -�j._ _r.. . (, "'• - x art:_� � _ `*r+3•.7V p� rld. / �,,�.. ..a'..' ;,'a•,i r.,t 'C ''} � Id ". .._.-aw i `~ x � �.�@r+. ","+7'`t�Y^!Q� "1..»"� i MY� �4 .. ... =—��' �1�'� Y .jd~ � Saa✓�,v P l A f { .r n W N ' to I " 1 . • r a 'S J < *; 47; t � Sunset Neighborhood Park: Proposed Parking Exhibit #1 Pros: 17 Site Area: 23,779 sf-- I / �,�,�--/11 Site Area: 47,602 sf PROPOSED DENSITY: 1 .O DUy / PROPOSED DENSTIY; 57.0 DU I ' I • Views ivlto park I z • CoAsistent a(1gV1mevtt I I Dw z NE I , ` I I W 111 /coJ Cons: \ 17 ► I ,/ 12 Site Area: 143,502 sf / • 13ackivig ivito traffic • Parkiv>.g vtot ov>. both sides 4 \ Q' -SIDEWALK PROPERTY LINE • Limited pedestriavt access � 5 � WMTER` _.ASSIRAED CENTERt RaC / ._.. - OF ROW / -ASSUMED PROPERTY Ltt.E i EXISTING PROPERTY LINE 11 E%Is mo MOPERTY LINES b EXiBTtNG CURB ~ -174 PROPOSED ADJUSTED F PROPL.REY TINES k� 1 \ / 12 J SUNSET ' _ NEIGHSORHOOP P / PARK PROPOSED ADJUSTED 'C J \ PROPERTY LIKE .` R E N 6 / ADJUSTED CENTERL4 E OF ROAD &A PROPERTY LINE Slgq HIGHLANDS kP % , 113 RARY � rah </ \ EXISTING PROPERTY ONE .PROPOSED 9/1 0 �aOay O1\ ADJUSTED CURB 2 \ PROPOS_TD ADJUSTED PROPER(Y LHFS Parking Stalls: 46 I 5 r L 5a 8' 19' 20` Park Sidewalk Planting 45° Angled Parking I ravel Lane l 1 2C� .5' curb s' curb '~ - `___- _ "" APPROX L,NE�- 9/10 Site Area: 45 887 sf 53` ROW __._ - -`"._... - I _ . § R.O.W RAPROVENENTS . 7=:5 FACE OF CURB PROPOSED DENSITY:112.0 DU FACE OF cuRe i ----'r t..- H PB GH2MHI L r- February 19, 2014 -- LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Sunset Neighborhood Park: Parallel/Angled Parking Exhibit #2 Pros: � J7 ✓ I • TraFfic Calming1 1 6" ua• Views into park . ' ,✓`' . � 1 , . : • Pedestrian access '��,. . � f w Q ,y 12 r Cons: • Not a consistent alignment • Backing into traffic ; --'' Storm 70 ---- Pedestrian Access Points Facility - ,. SUNSET NEIGHBORHOOD Mukilteo Town Center PARK Angled Parking Example -6/7 ` RENTON ' °. HIGHLANDS , 4 ., .. ` L113RARY9/10 f Parking Stalls: 39 Sidewalk P(a'^ti Travel Lane 450 Angled Parking 9/10 Site Area. d5,187 sf .s' curb .s curb "R1 J�3' ROW f pis i'II`CtSEL3 T Et�t`�iTY-N4.0 6U H B B C142MHILL. _ ___J�. : February 19, 2014 r r i �� �' J LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE w�► Sunset Neighborhood Park: Parallel/Angled Parking Exhibit #3 n Pros: � k� ' w "" ' • Consistent alignment � -1' �' �°1�� ; > • Parkin 9 on botA sides 12 Si E- • Landscape pockets C3 , • Pedestrian access Cons: ' St0 r 7() • Limited views into park a'� Ste out area on ark side _ Pedestrian Access Points L Facility p p I (Typical) " SUNSET NEICiHOORHOOD — PARK Mukilteo Town Center f RENTON ) Parallel Parkin Exam le HIGHLANDS g p �c� \,� � L113RARY / � �', , •.,� � dam`'' 9/10 it U s n � U Trees in . tree grates Parking Stalls: 42 9/10 Sift A 141 q` 2O` 9` _ Sidewalk IParkivtg Travel Lane Parking 5` curb .51 curb 53` ROW H D U CH2MHILL� February 19, 2014 - 1--- -- "� ► LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Sunset Neighborhood Park: Recommended Parking Option Exhibit #4 z Pros: z • Consistent alignment LU> • Parking opportunity on both sides \ P;/1 - • Landscape pockets 7 F7 -' • Pedestrian access 17 12 Site • Angled parking compatible V- w1tk Retail • Parallel parking compatible with Residential • Load/Unload accommodates Section 13 events and provides visual access Stor Pedestrian Access Points Facility (Typical) Cons: • Partial limited views into park Section A SUNSET Mukilteo Town Center • Step out area on park side NEII�H[30RHOOP Parallel Parking Example V, PARK w . \617 RENTON HIGHLANDS LIBRARY Parking Stalls: 43 9/10 AI 14 (6 1 Park 1-4 0 Park 2-0' 0 Sidewalk Planting Parking Travel Lane Load/Sidewalk Plartting Parking Trove( Lo;Ae Parking Sidewalk Curb Unload .51 curb .51 curb .51 curb 53, ROW 53' ROW Section A Section 13 HBB %0 CH2MHILL March 19, 2014 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE '111101b. O m � CLUSTER o t NF nor / ysT J ' ZZZYmoillfrM ► Al \ Imo►' - -- -' ' OZ �L HBB Z� DRAFT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SUNSET NEIGHBORHOOD PARK CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE APRIL 3, 2014 NORTH sc4l O --- --- ----- - - i y PROMENADE tee J Water Feature Play . :mot. �` • Restroo \ Fitvtes Play . �\ \ v+ •'�'� Picnic ZVL% StagiK h Performavtce ViewiKg Area h� \� Z O Z �L Z� HBB DRAFT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SUNSET NEIGHBORHOOD PARK CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE APRIL 3, 2014 NORTH SCALE O 00PORTAL Za o ySip' try J y I / I Play b �y&ZA- ti F* O ` ys N _ i � _ _ _ _ � I/iCwra9 fii-eX I l � O 2 9L Zt� HBB DRAFT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SUNSET NEIGHBORHOOD PARK CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE APRIL 3, 2014 NORTH SCALE 0 �i 4 m a mo za 0 FLOW � / Z NF sip- ............ �y / y° .110 Awhownee- YiCwiaJ AMM �- Iro i - \ ` Qi � 1 Pia Asle 1. \ c+ oZ HBB Z� DRAFT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SUNSET NEIGHBORHOOD PARK CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE APRIL 3, 2014 NORTH SCALE Sunset Neighborhod Park Cost Estimate Schematic Planning Level Hough Beck & Baird Inc. Date: 05/29/14 VILLAGE GREEN VISTA PLACE WATER COMMONS Item Unit Cost Ots. Item Total Ots. Item Total Ots. Item Total 1. Demolition ( no demolition assumed) NA B 2. Site Preparation $2.00 /s.f. 141,500 s.f. $283,000.00 141,500 s.f. $283,000.00 141,500 s.f. $283,000.00 B 3. Grading $1.00 /s.f. 141,500 s.f. $141,500.00 141,500 s.f. $141,500.00 141,500 s.f. $141,500.00 B 4. Electrical Receptacles $30,000.00 I.s. 1 I.S. $30,000.00 1 I.S. $30,000.00 1 I.S. $30,000.00 B 5. Light Bollards $3,000.00 /ea 20 ea $60,000.00 20 ea $60,000.00 20 ea $60,000.00 B 6. Utilities (Water/Sanitary) $150,000.00 I.S. 1 I.S. $150,000.00 1 I.S. $150,000.00 1 I.S. $150,000.00 B 7. Storm Drainage $120,000.00 I.s. 0 I.S. $0.00 0 I.S. $0.00 0 I.S. $0.00 B 8. Trees $425.00 /ea 60 ea $25,500.00 60 ea $25,500.00 60 ea $25,500.00 B 9. Shrubs and Groundcover(soil prep included) $7.00 /s.f. 15,340 s.f. $107,380.00 15,620 s.f. $109,340.00 14,940 s.f. $104,580.00 B 10. Lawn (soil prep included) $3.00 /s.f. 71,730 s.f. $215,190.00 68,780 s.f. $206,340.00 71,660 s.f. $214,980.00 B 11. Irrigation $2.00 /s.f. 87,070 s.f. $174,140.00 84,400 s.f. $168,800.00 86,600 s.f. $173,200.00 B 12. Concrete Paving $9.50 /s.f. 37,890 s.f. $359,955.00 37,190 s.f. $353,305.00 37,990 s.f. $360,905.00 S 13. Soft Surface Hardscape(includes edging) $12.00 /s.f. 0 s.f. $0.00 1,590 s.f. $19,080.00 0 s.f. $0.00 B 14. Play Areas (surfacing and structures included) $600,000.00 I.s. 1 I.S. $600,000.00 1 I.S. $600,000.00 1 I.S. $600,000.00 B 15. Fitness Stations $10,000.00 /ea 5 ea $50,000.00 5 ea $50,000.00 5 ea $50,000.00 B 16. Restroom w/ Pump Room $400.00 /s.f. 1,000 s.f. $400,000.00 1,000 s.f. $400,000.00 1,000 s.f. $400,000.00 B 17. Water Feature: Pump& Filter Vault $20,000.00 I.s. 1 I.S. $20,000.00 1 I.S. $20,000.00 1 I.S. $20,000.00 B 18. Water Feature: Jet Fountain $2,150.00 /ea 24 ea $51,600.00 24 ea $51,600.00 24 ea $51,600.00 S 19. Water Runnel Feature $30,000.00 I.s. 0 I.s. $0.00 0 I.s. $0.00 1 I.S. $30,000.00 B 20. Picnic Tables w/ Pad $2,500.00 /ea 10 ea $25,000.00 10 ea $25,000.00 10 ea $25,000.00 B 21. Benches $2,500.00 /ea 17 ea $42,500.00 35 ea $87,500.00 0 ea $0.00 S 22. Special Bench $400.00 /I.f. 0 I.f. $0.00 0 I.f. $0.00 340 I.f. $136,000.00 B 23. Litter Receptacles $1,500.00 /ea 5 ea $7,500.00 5 ea $7,500.00 5 ea $7,500.00 B 24. Bicycle Racks $1,250.00 /ea 5 ea $6,250.00 5 ea $6,250.00 5 ea $6,250.00 S 25. Seatwalls $200.00 /I.f. 130 I.f. $26,000.00 870 I.f. $174,000.00 140 I.f. $28,000.00 S 26. Pergola $300.00 /I.f. 0 I.f. $0.00 0 I.f. $0.00 460 I.f. $138,000.00 B 27. Interpretive Signage $2,000.00 I.s. 2 I.s. $4,000.00 2 I.s. $4,000.00 2 I.s. $4,000.00 B 28. Monument Park Sign $5,000.00 I.S. 1 I.S. $5,000.00 1 I.S. $5,000.00 1 I.S. $5,000.00 Assumptions: BASE (B)Subtotal: $2,758,515.00 $2,784,635.00 $2,713,015.00 1. Cost estimate reflects 2014 in-place construction costs. Mobilization (15 %) $ 413,777.25 $ 417,695.25 $ 406,952.25 2. Cost estimate based on Schematic Plans. 3. Costs assume normal site conditions. Any soil stabilization, soil Subtotal: $3,172,292.25 $3,202,330.25 $3,119,967.25 clean-up, and/or special structural footing requirements is above Sales Tax (9.5 %) $ 301,367.76 $ 304,221.37 $ 296,396.89 and beyond the scope of this estimate. 4. Does not include Art. Subtotal: $3,473,660.01 $3,506,551.62 $3,416,364.14 Contingency(25 %) $ 868,415.00 $ 876,637.91 $ 854,091.03 Probable BASE Construction Cost $4,342,075.02 $4,383,189.53 $4,270,455.17 SPECIALS (S)Subtotal: $26,000.00 $193,080.00 $332,000.00 Mobilization (15 %) $ 3,900.00 $ 28,962.00 $ 49,800.00 Subtotal: $29,900.00 $222,042.00 $381,800.00 Sales Tax (9.5 %) $ 2,840.50 $ 21,093.99 $ 36,271.00 Subtotal: $32,740.50 $243,135.99 $418,071.00 Contingency(25 %) $ 8,185.13 $ 60,784.00 $ 104,517.75 Probable SPECIALS Construction Cost $40,925.63 $303,919.99 $522,588.75 Probable Total Construction Cost $4,383,000.64 $4,687,109.52 $4,793,043.92 PA2013 Projects\2013-09 Sunset Park\Admin\03-Cost Estimates\Magnitude Cost Comparisons Sunset Neighborhood Park Master Plan Park Concept Alternatives Investing in Housing Jobs Education 0 Health Environment Transportation IMF-- CLUSTER .� L PORTAL .k I o i Pedestrian � ION 3 / Pedestrian Pathways Rs' / Pathwayss> .:Plaza - _ a a'rdc.Z \ Play aza\ estro _ •- ? Play Picnic / ' Play ta9i R, ii ard, r►� Restrob Raicigd ¢�i ! 44, P / 0,1 \ °►� _ i l Play 'r Plaza Water sr Picnic Performance � u {\ Viewing A — �' v Feature Waterf Feature 1 ' �i �rformance y� \ ts� Fitnes iewina Area y�2� �r n }` a� Alt, - FLOW I I 1 PROMENADE A m X m% -0 0 0 Pedestrian i 'rt �� Pedestrian = �2 r Pathways la'—r►� '> 02 Pathways Plazq +' °�4 y Plaza Plaza� 7 �� � i � � Picni Water LRdw�garde PI � I Feature p � �Raiwggrdui�- (� 7 Performance zzl Play r= Are }� /} y t Restroo Viewin a Plazd Restro\\ w \' Play Fitne a Picni �Yl� / Picnic �' — �� (� Play L'sa,� Performance Play' / i \ Viewing Area \ Water ' Feature i 4049 e HBB CN2111VIIIHILL. May 1, 2014 Sunset Neighborhood Park Master Plan Park Concept Alternative Investing in Housing Jobs Education Health Environment Transportation �0�Z RHA Housing n RHA Housing _ PREFERRED c% 2 PROMENADE/PORTAL Pedestrian o �� RHA Housing ; wF v s Pathwa y Load/Unload ysr J�y� Plaza y Plaza Staging —~ — - Picnic; Plaza "7' Performance Picnic Viewing Area/ Open Space 1 estroo ctwtigardn F, itnes oy " - Pla � _ - (z-s yrs) -Xti �r Picni ?A. \ %,k Open Space _ - - Water Feature yw Plaza Play Q Market Rate �►/ rs - Housing Library Plaza Open Space Plaza � Market Rate Housing/Mixed Use \\ L� yJ Market Rate Housing �o 2 HBB 4 C142MHILL. June 18, 2014 Sunset Neighborhood Park Master Plan Nearby Park Facilities Investing in Housing Jobs 0 Education 0 Health Environment 0 Transportation FEIS Sunset Area Preferred Community Framework Within a %Z mile to the north: - {-� �� �� �✓ '�� \ North Highlands Park and I "` Neighborhood Center 1 - • 1 LigAted Tennis Court - Hill cr .5 R proposed for refurbistAment I - Sc , o_OI • Portion of park area has been L ' © �N_or preliminarily identified for - - Highl� a •O l s raised bed community garden nd ' L Pa_rk-�, McKnight Middle School (School lAas first use priority) fp = • 4 Tennis Courts � • z Sasketball Courts -_ • 3 Baseball Fields — � � � • 3 Soccer Fields fiddle r drool -, 1 ' Within %Z mile to the south: Hi lands 9 Highlands Park and - Library,, * Neighborhood Center J _ --- - - J . 21 Tennis Courts -- - ` • z 13asketball Courts ,. Q :wools -k■J T L • 1 Softball Field - •• ' C - , t-�--1 • 1 Soccer/Multi-purpose Field �r- -1 z- �- - No Off-leask dog park facilities i 1 are located in tke Planned > = I Action EIS area. Sunset Terrace * I - _ Y t LEGEND i Pedestrian Intersection r - Pedestrian Connections I - r Sunset BLVD Improvements —I — M" Green Collector Arterial Green Access Local Collector f-- ' Woonerf/Green alley Permeable Sidewalk LjIghldnds ' School/Civic tsar Mixed Use �•,4% ' T 1j y O Residential I--i f ■`■.+..�.■NA 7th St - .. Parks Rent�on \Y7 Community Garden - .■�■.■ EIS Boundary fi 0 ` � �h �L. --�•���� r f r, HBB *4 CH2MHILL. VOW June 18, 2014 ram: y VILLAGE GREEN a< RHA Housing a Z_ ; RHA Housing s RHA Housing Load/Unload v o ° O o n i, \ ,� � ° Bench,typ J \ \ O A 39. o v Staging Raingarden ° vv W `\ Poten rt � � I poi PerFor►viance Seating/ i'6� � — O Location,typ \ � 1 Open Space .. O 6 A 1 ° S v _ 342 ; ° Park 1 \ Pathwa t Rai arden s v v 9�typ ng v v v y "Notice Boards" Restroo►x — Seatwall typ Playground yr v ° ® Water DO �� Feature \ J\ O Gj \\ Zv / o e O r , Market Rate -� o ° rar Lib y a Housing v Picnic,typ poi` Fitness Playground 331 5-12 yr � 1 1 \ V A O /f % \ \ O O V° vv\ 0 Market Rate �. Housing/Mixed Use LJ �o !> § Market Rate Housing DRAFT: SUNSET NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SCHEMATIC PLAN MAY 29, 2014 NORTH SCALE RHA Housin VISTA PLACE 9 a �� RHA Housing RHA Housing 1 c -- -- -- ------ --- m 0 y Potential y� C ti t Lo cation 2 NF Zorys yJ r � Load/Unload � �. � v Interpretive Plaza ` Sign / �39 Plaza \3R v v Staging ��a Pth 4ce a o\ `\ `� Raingarden "Notice Boards" Restroo►n l Performance Seating/ \ Plaza. Seatwall,typ Open Space Water _ \ \\ \\ \ \ Feature (� Raingarden \ \\ \\o Picnic,typ \�, o \ , / v ` v v ` ` `v Bench,typ o Playground 014 5 v, IV-ON \ \ \ O Market Rate_ layground \ \� \ \ \ 5-12 yr Library Housing v A ` Potential '" �38 Art Location \ 331 \ \ \ 0 \ \ Viewing Plaza 3 \V Park �v 0 \ Pathway,typ v v ° � i v y Market Rate _s �? Potential Housing/Mixed Use Art Location 41/ V 4�� �� Tk �y Market Rate Housing DRAFT: SUNSET NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SCHEMATIC PLAN MAY 29, 2014 NORTH SCALE RHA Housing "_ WATER COMMONS c�Z 9 a RHA Housing RHA Housing M Load/Unload �. 00 stagingv � 1 a\ ��\ � 'Raingarden Picnic,tgp �� •• v No ice Boards" �� Potential o Art Location i - Y Restroom 342 \ Performance Seating/ .334 s� \� ° Open Space Raingarden F��' �� .v ° Playground ; 2-5 yr l G \ ZN \\\\\� 0 ° v � X v v V v v ° ° ti Water ioi ipl�ioi Feature v Market RatePark \ f Housing ` � Pathway,typ ��v -� ���� L brarl �� \ vv v vv vv vv Playground 5-12 yr ��, � vv .Arh. Water 331 \ \ Spillway/RunnelLn Market Rate Housing/Mixed Use ' � a49 04 Z ('-k Market Rate Housing i DRAFT: SUNSET NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SCHEMATIC PLAN MAY 29, 2014 NORTH SCALE date topic -- OF k401 - AW t3 -lzb IA 17 on aolo� .- � . - S � rtegraph.c��o��! a date topic www.cartegraph.com 800 688.2656 Cart6graph Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Meeting Tuesday, February 4t", 2014 Conferencing Center, 7t" Floor of Renton City Hall Agenda 1. Phase I closing 2. Demolition, construction timetable 3. Phase II, design progress 4. Colpitts PUD for the Phase I and Phase II "brow' that represents land use and entitlement interests, addresses the variance questions, and seeks sanction for unit density 5. RHA PUD for Bldg. 5, Node, and Piha site that represents land use and entitlement interests, addresses the variance questions, and seeks sanction for unit density 6. Site control transaction(s) planning 1o�S�os , � 11 'GLENWOODAV � Ewa 1 / m Z / o 1C.0 1 _-- L 5RRRTON AVE N � 1 d ` G2sF �� SG