The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMisc - 1 of 4.SUNSET AREA COMMUNITY PLANNED ACTION FINAL NEPA/SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT • VOLUME 1 • APRIL 2011 . — a 211 .J 4' ft , IT i L J.'Issued by: -' City of Renton EFA Responsible Entity and ad Agency repared in partnership with: kff Menton Housinq Authoritv City of C 1 r r� April 1, 2011 Subject: Sunset Area Community Planned Action Dear EIS Recipient: The City of Renton (City) in consultation with the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) has prepared the attached Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS). The City is acting as the Responsible Entity for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with 24 CFR §§ 58.1 and 58.4, and is the lead agency for compliance with the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA, RCW 43.21C), The Final EIS addresses the Sunset Area Community Planned Action, which includes redevelopment of RHA's Sunset Terrace public housing community and associated neighborhood growth and revitalization (proposal). Sunset Terrace's redevelopment provides the opportunity to evaluate the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood and determine what future land use redevelopment is desirable and what public service and infrastructure improvements should be made to create a more vibrant and attractive community for residents, businesses, and property owners. The Final EIS addresses the following topics: aesthetics; air quality, including greenhouse gas emissions; earth; energy, including natural gas and electricity; environmental health; environmental justice; historic/cultural resources; housing; Iand use; noise; parks and recreation; plants and animals; public services, including public education, safety, health, and social services; socioeconomics, including demographics, employment, and displacement; transportation; utilities, including wastewater, water supply, and telecommunication; and water resources, including groundwater and surface water. The Final EIS completes the environmental review process by revising or clarifying portions of the analysis and responding to public and agency comments on the Draft EIS. The Final EIS also introduces and reviews another alternative, called the Preferred Alternative, which is within the range of alternatives studied in the Draft EIS. The City analyzed three alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3] as part of the Draft EIS to determine its Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is evaluated in this Final EIS. All four alternatives are described below. Alternative 1(No Action). RHA would develop affordable housing on two vacant properties, but it would not redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing property. Very limited public investment would be implemented, resulting in lesser redevelopment across the Planned Action Study Area. A Planned Action would not be designated. The No Action Alternative is required to be studied under NEPA and SEPA, Alternative 2. This alternative represents a moderate level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area based on investment in mixed -income housing and mixed uses in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, targeted infrastructure and public services throughout the Planned Action Study Area, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Alternative 3. This alternative represents the highest level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area, based on investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with a greater number dwellings developed in a mixed -income, mixed-use style, major public investment in study area infrastructure and services, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Preferred Alternative. This alternative represents neighborhood growth similar to and slightly less than Alternative 3 in the Planned Action Study Area, based on investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with a moderate number dwellings developed in a mixed -income, mixed-use style oriented around a larger park space and loop road, major public investment in study area infrastructure and services, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. The potential beneficial and adverse impacts of each alternative are identified as well as mitigation measures. Some of the key environmental issues and options facing decision -makers include: • land use—the appropriate mix of land use and housing in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the near term and the amount of growth in the Planned Action Study Area over 20 years; • transportation ---the type of multimodal and urban design improvements appropriate for ISE Sunset Boulevard (SR900); • stormwater drainage—the type and location of natural stormwater infrastructure integrated in design of streets, parks, and new development; • other improvements—the coordination of parks and schools facilities, the development of enhanced educational, recreational, and social services, and the improvement of utility systems; and • planned action—the application of a planned action ordinance that would exempt future projects from SEPA threshold determinations or E1Ss when they are consistent with the Sunset Area Community EIS assumptions and mitigation measures. The City will consider the preferred alternative and the responses to comments provided in this Final EIS before taking action on the proposals under study. For more information, please contact: Erika Conkling, AICP Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econkling@irentonwa.gov Thank you for your interest in the Sunset Area Community. Sincerely, City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Signature: L,vvw lei _ U Signature:L � I P� ) � -` FINAL SUNSET AREA COMMUNITY PLANNED ACTION NEPA/SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PREPARED FOR: City of Renton NEPA Responsible Entity and SEPA Lead Agency Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 In partnership with Renton Housing Authority 2900 Northeast 10th Street Renton, Washington 98056 PRINCIPAL AUTHORS: CH2MHil1 Project Manager ICF International EIS Lead April 2011 CH2MHi11 and ICF International. 2011. Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement. Final. April. [ICF 00593.10.] Bellevue and Seattle, WA. Prepared for City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Fact Sheet Project Title Sunset Area Community Planned Action Proposal and Alternatives This Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addresses the Sunset Area Community Planned Action, which includes redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and associated neighborhood growth and revitalization (proposal). Sunset Terrace's redevelopment provides the opportunity to evaluate the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood and determine what future land use redevelopment is desirable and what public service and infrastructure improvements should be made to create a more vibrant and attractive community for residents, businesses, and property owners. The objective of the proposal is to promote the redevelopment of public housing, implement infrastructure improvements throughout the Planned Action Study Area, and facilitate planning and environmental review for the Planned Action Study Area. The proposal is reviewed in terms of four alternatives. Alternative 1, No Action. The No Action Alternative represents conditions where Sunset Terrace public housing redevelopment would not occur, and very limited public investment would be implemented in the neighborhood (e.g., some community services but no NE Sunset Boulevard or master drainage plan improvements), resulting in lesser redevelopment across the Planned Action Study Area. A Planned Action would not be designated. The No Action Alternative is required to be studied under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Alternative 2. This alternative represents a moderate level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area based on investment in mixed -income housing and mixed uses in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, targeted infrastructure and public services throughout the Planned Action Study Area, and adoption of a Planned Action ordinance. Alternative 3. This alternative represents the highest level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area based on investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, with a greater number dwellings developed in a mixed -income, mixed-use style; major public investment in study area infrastructure and services; and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Preferred Alternative. This alternative represents neighborhood growth in the Planned Action Study Area similar to but slightly less than that of Alternative 3 based on investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, with a moderate number dwellings developed in a mixed -income, mixed-use style and oriented around a larger park space and loop road; major public investment in study area infrastructure and services; and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement F5 1 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Fact Sheet Location The Sunset Terrace public housing community is generally bounded by Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE on the north, NE 10th Street on the east, NE Sunset Boulevard (State Route [SR] 900) on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west. The Sunset Terrace public housing community is part of the Sunset Area Community neighborhood. This broader neighborhood is the Planned Action Study Area considered in this EIS; it is generally bounded by NE 21st Street on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7th Street on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west. Proponent The Renton Housing Authority (RHA) is the proponent of the proposal's primary development action, redevelopment of the existing Sunset Terrace public housing community. 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 of Renton (City) is authorized to assume responsibility for environmental review, decision-making, and action that would otherwise apply to HUD under NEPA, which includes NEPA lead agency responsibility. As the entity responsible for public service and infrastructure improvements for Sunset Terrace and the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood as well as regulating private neighborhood redevelopment, the City is the proponent of the broader Planned Action that would streamline local permitting and environmental review under SEPA (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 43.21C). The City implements SEPA and NEPA and is performing joint NEPA/SEPA environmental review in this EIS. The City, in partnership with RHA and other agencies, intends to use federal funds from several HUD programs to help finance proposed project activities. Lead Agency for NEPA and SEPA Compliance City of Renton Responsible Official City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Contact Person Erika Con kling, A] CP Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-6578, voice; (425)430-7300, fax econiding@rentonwa.gov Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement FS ICF 593.10 City of Renton Required Approvals Fact Sheet The following permits and/or approvals could be required for the proposal. Additional permits/approvals may be identified during the review process associated with implementing future development projects. Planned Action Study Area To implement the proposal, the following must be approved by the City: • adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments regarding capital facility and transportation improvements required in association with projected growth, • adoption of NE Sunset Boulevard Conceptual Plan, • adoption of a drainage master plan, and • adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Prior to City action, the State of Washington Department of Commerce would coordinate state agency review of any Comprehensive Plan amendments or development regulations. After the City action, the likely permits to be acquired by individual development proposals in the Planned Action Study Area include, but are not limited to, land use permits, construction permits, building permits, and street use permits. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Federal Agencies Department of Housing and Urban Development • Record of Decision • Approval of Request for Release of Funds • Demolition/Disposition Application • Approval of Sunset Terrace project -related certifications National Marine Fisheries Service • Endangered Species Act Consultation State and Regional Agencies Department of Ecology • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/Stormwater General Permit Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation • Historic and cultural resources consultation Puget sound Clean Air Agency Asbestos surveys • Demolition permits Sunset Area Community Planned Action FS -3 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Fact Sheet City of Renton • Site plan approval • Building, fire, electrical permits EIS Authors and Principal Contributors This document has been prepared under the direction of the City Department of Community and Economic Development with consultation from RHA. Key authors and topics are listed below. CH2MH111 1100 112th Ave NE, Suite 400 Bellevue, WA 98004-4511 (425) 453-5000 (Project management, earth, water resources, environmental health, socioeconomics, environmental justice, parks and recreation, transportation, and utilities) ICF International 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 801-2800 (EIS lead, air quality, plants and animals, energy, noise, land use, housing, aesthetics, historic/cultural, public services) Mithun 1201 Alaskan Way, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98101 (Sunset Terrace Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative) Weinman Consulting LLC 9350 S.E. 68th Street Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 295-0783 (NEPA compliance, Planned Action Ordinance) Date of Draft EIS Issuance December 17, 2010 Date of Draft EIS Public Meetings January 4, 2011 RHA hosted meeting for Sunset Terrace residents January 5, 2011 Public hearing held before the City of Renton Planning Commission Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement F5_q ICF 593.10 City of Renton Fact Sheet Date Draft EIS Comments Were Due January 31, 2011 Date of Final EIS Issuance The NEPA/SEPA Final EIS will be available for a 30 -day review period starting April 1, 2011. A NEPA Record of Decision (ROD) will be issued after the 30 -day Final EIS availability period. Date of Implementation Approval of City actions is anticipated by May 2011. Previous Environmental Documents Prior environmental review was conducted for the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent amendments, including the following documents: Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance, Harrington Square, September 2,2003; and • Determination of Non -Significance, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments for Highlands Area, November 6, 2006. When appropriate, prior environmental documents were considered in the preparation of this EIS, Location of Background Information See contact person above. Availability of the Final EIS The document is posted on the City's web site at httl2://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=2060. Reference copies and copies for purchase (for the cost of production) are also available at Renton City Hall, Department of Community and Economic Development, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA, 98057. The document is also available as a reference at Renton Housing Authority offices, 2900 Northeast 10th Street, Renton, WA 98056; • Highlands Brach Library, 2902 NE 12th Street, Renton, WA 98056; and • Renton Library, 100 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98057. Sunset Area Community Planned Action FS -5 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 Contents Listof Tables............................................................................................................................. vi List of Figures ..................... "' .....................................................................................��---....---.... VIII Volume 1: Chapters Chapter1 Summary................................................................................................. ............1-1 1.1 .................................... Introduction........................................................................ ......1-1 1.2 Proponent.....................................................................................................................1-1 1.2.1 Project Location...............................................................................................1-1 1.3 Proposa I Overview ........................................................... ............................................. 1-2 1.3.1 Sunset Terrace Redevelopment......................................................................1-2 1.3.2 Other Components of the Planned Action......................................................1-3 1.3.3 Planned Action Ordinance .......... ........... .......................................................... 1-3 1.4 Proposal Alternatives....................................................................................................1-3 1.4.1 Alternative 1: No Action..................................................................................1-4 1.4.2 Alternative 2....................................................................................................1-5 1.4.3 Alternative 3 ................................................ .................................................... 1-5 1.4.4 Preferred Alternative .......... ............................................................................. 1-6 1.5 Summary of Impacts.....................................................................................................1-8 1.6 Summary of Mitigation Measures..............................................................................1-47 1.7 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts..................................................................1-62 Chapter 2 Proposal and Alternatives............................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Proponent.....................................................................................................................2-1 2.3 Project Location............................................................................................................2-1 2.4 Proposal Overview........................................................................................................2-3 2.4.1 Sunset Terrace Redevelopment................................................. ..................... 2-3 2.4.2 Other Components of the Planned Action......................................................2-4 2.4.3 Planned Action Ordinance...............................................................................2-4 2.5 Background Information...............................................................................................2-5 2.5.1 Regulatory Overview.......................................................................................2-5 2.5.2 Planning and Community Involvement .......................................... ................. 2-9 2.5.3 Renton Housing Authority Functions, Programs, and Project Planning..................................................................................... .2-13 ................... 2.5.4 Environmental Analysis and Review—SEPA and NEPA.................................2-14 Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement I ICF 593.10 City of Renton Contents 2.6 Purpose and Need for Proposal..................................................................................2-15 2.6.1 Study Area Conditions and Trends................................................................2-16 2.6.2 Sunset Terrace Public Housing Conditions and Trends.................................2-18 2.6.3 Proposal Goals and Objectives......................................................................2-19 2.7 Proposal Alternatives..................................................................................................2-21 2.7.1 Description of Proposal Alternatives.............................................................2-22 2.7.2 Comparison of Features of Proposal Alternatives.........................................2-27 2.8 Benefits and Disadvantages of Deferring Implementation........................................2-65 Chapter 3 Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative.............................................................. 3-1 3.1 Earth.................................................................................. .................................... .......3-1 3.1.1 Planned Action Study Area ......................................... ............3-1 3.1.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.........................................3-3 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures....................................................................................... 3-3 3.2 Air Quality..................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.1 Planned Action Study Area.............................................................................. 3-3 3.2.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.........................................3-7 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures..................................................................................... 3-10 3.3 Water Resources ............................................... .......................................................... 3-10 3.3.1 Background and Methods.............................................................................3-10 3.3.2 Change in Land Cover—Preferred Alternative ........ ...................................... 3-11 3.3.3 Planned Action Study Area............................................................................3-12 3.3.4 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.......................................3-16 3.3.5 Mitigation Measures.....................................................................................3-16 3.4 Plants and Animals....................................................... .3-16 ............................................. 3.4.1 Planned Action Study Area ................. ....... .................................................... 3-17 3.4.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.......................................3-19 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures.....................................................................................3-20 3.5 Energy .........................................................................................................................3-20 3.5.1 Planned Action Study Area............................................................... ............. 3-20 3.5.2 Potential SunsetTerraceRedevelopment Subarea.......................................3-21 3.5.3 Mitigation Measures.....................................................................................3-22 3.6 Noise ........ ................................................................................................................... 3-22 3.6.1 Planned Action Study Area............................................................................3-22 3.6.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.......................................3-23 3.6.3 Mitigation Measures ... .................................................................................. 3-24 3.7 Environmental Health.................................................................................................3-25 3.7.1 Planned Action Study Area............................................................................3-25 Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement n ICF 593.10 City of Renton Contents Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement �� ICF 593.1a 3.7.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.......................................3-26 3.8 Land Use..................................................................................................................... 3-27 3.8.1 Planned Action Study Area............................................................................3-27 3.8.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.......................................3-28 3.8.3 Mitigation Measures.....................................................................................3-29 3.9 Socioeconomics.......................................................................................................... 3-29 3.9.1 Planned Action Study Area............................................................................3-30 3.9.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.......................................3-33 3.9.3 Mitigation Measures .... ................................................................................. 3-34 3.10 Housing ........ ............................................................................................................... 3-34 3.10.1 Planned Action Study Area............................................................................3-34 3.10.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea .................................. ..... 3-35 3.10.3 Mitigation Measures.....................................................................................3-36 3.11 Environmental Justice.................................................................................................3-36 3.11.1 Planned Action Study Area............................................................................3-36 3.11.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.......................................3-38 3.11.3 Mitigation Measures ... .................................................................................. 3-40 3.12 Aesthetics...................................................................................................................3-40 3.12.1 Planned Action Study Area............................................................ ............. ...3-40 3.12.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ....... ................................ 3-41 3.12.3 Mitigation Measures.....................................................................................3-42 3.13 Historic/Cultural.........................................................................................................3-42 3.13.1 Planned Action Study Area............................................................................3-42 3.13.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.......................................3-43 3.13.3 Mitigation Measures.....................................................................................3-44 3.14 Transportation............................................................................................................ 3-44 3.14.1 Planned Action Study Area............................................................................3-44 3.14.2 Mitigation Measures...................................................... ............................... 3-52 3.14.3 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ... .................................... 3-53 3.15 Parks and Recreation.................................................................................................. 3-53 3.15.1 Planned Action Study Area............................................................................3-57 3.15.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.......................................3-57 3.15.3 Mitigation Measures.....................................................................................3-58 3.16 Public Services............................................................................................................3-58 3.16.1 Planned Action Study Area .................. .......................................................... 3-58 3.16.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.......................................3-60 3.16.3 Mitigation Measures.....................................................................................3-61 Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement �� ICF 593.1a City of Renton Contents 3.17 Utilities........................................................... ............................................................. 3-61 3.17.1 Planned Action Study Area............................................................................3-62 3.17.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.......................................3-62 3.17.3 Mitigation—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ..................3-63 3.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ....................... ................... 3-68 3.19 Local Short -Term Uses of Environment and Long -Term Productivity ........................3-68 Chapter 4 Clarifications and Corrections to draft EES....................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Fact Sheet and Other Front Matter ................................................. ....... ...................... 4-1 4.2 Draft EIS Chapter 1................................................................................... ................... .4-1 4.3 Draft EIS Chapter 2.......................................................................................................4-1 4.4 Draft EIS Chapters 3 and 4............................................................................................4-1 4.4.1 Earth................................................................................................................4-1 4.4.2 Air Quality........................................................................................................4-1 4.4.3 Water Resources.............................................................................................4-2 4.4.4 Plants and Animals..........................................................................................4-2 4.4.5 Energy ................................................ .............................................................. 4-4 4.4.6 Noise................................................................................................................4-4 4.4.7 Environmental Health......................................................................................4-4 4.4.8 Land Use .... ...................................................................................................... 4-5 4.4.9 Socioeconomics...............................................................................................4-5 4.4.10 Housing............................................................................................................4-5 4.4.11 Environmental Justice......................................................................................4-5 4.4.12 Aesthetics................................................................................................ ..4-5 4.4.13 Historic/Cultural..............................................................................................4-5 4.4.14 Transportation.................................................................................................4-6 4.4.15 Parks and Recreation.......................................................................................4-7 4.4.16 Public Services............................................................................ ................... ..4-9 4.4.17 Utilities.............................................................................................................4-9 4.4.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .............................4-10 4.4.19 Local Short -Term Uses of Environment and Long -Term Productivity.................................................................................................... 4-10 4.5 Draft EIS Chapter 5.....................................................................................................4-10 4.6 Draft EIS Chapter 6.....................................................................................................4-10 4.7 Draft EIS Chapter 7.....................................................................................................4-10 4.8 Draft EIS Chapter 8.....................................................................................................4-10 4.9 Draft EIS Appendices .............................. .................................................................... 4-11 Chapter 5 Responses to Comments................................................................................................. 5-1 Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement �� ICF 593.10 City of Renton Contents Sunset Area Community Planned Action V April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 5.1 Overview....................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Public Comments..........................................................................................................5-1 5.3 Responses to Comments..............................................................................................5-1 Chapter 6 Coordination and Consultation with Agencies and Tribes ............................................... 6-1 Chapter7 List of Preparers............................................................................................................. 7-1 Chapter 8 Distribution List.............................................................................................................. 8-1 8.1 Federal, State, Tribal, Regional, County and City Agencies..........................................8-1 8.1.1 Federal Agencies ....... ....................................................................................... 8-1 8.1.2 State of Washington Agencies .................................................... ..................... 8-1 8.1.3 Tribal....................................................................................... .8-2 8.1.4 Regional ......................... ............................... ................................................... 8-2 8.1.5 Counties......................................................... ................................................... 8-2 8.1.6 Cities................................................................................................... .8-2 8.1.7 Local Agencies.................................................................................................8-2 8.2 Special Districts, Transportation, and Utilities.............................................................8-2 8.3 Newspapers..................................................................................................................8-3 8.4 Residents and Property Owners .................... ................. ............................................ ..8-3 Chapter 9 References and Acronyms.............................................................................................. 9-1 9.1 References....................................................................................................................9-1 9.1.1 Chapter 1.........................................................................................................9-1 9.1.2 Chapter 2.........................................................................................................9-1 9.1.3 Chapter 3 .................. ....................................................................................... 9-3 9.1.4 Chapter 4.........................................................................................................9-3 9.1.5 Chapter 5 ..................................................... .............................. ............ .......... 9-4 9.1.6 Chapter 6.........................................................................................................9-4 9.1.7 Chapter 7...................................................................................... ............9-4 9.1.8 Chapter 8.........................................................................................................9-4 9.2 Acronyms......................................................................................................................9-5 Sunset Area Community Planned Action V April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Contents Tables 1-1. Impacts of Alternatives..............................................................................................................1-9 1-2. Mitigation Measures ..................................... ........................................................................... 1-49 1-3. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...............................................................................1-63 2-1. Zoning Classifications and Extent in the Planned Action Study Area........................................2-8 2-2. Alternative Development Matrix -Neighborhood Land Use ............................................. ..... 2-28 2-3. Alternative Development Matrix -Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea................................................................................................................... ............ 2-29 2-4. Alternative Development Matrix -NE Sunset Boulevard.......................................................2-30 2-5. Alternative Development Matrix-Stormwater Management...............................................2-32 2-6. Summary of Land Capacity -Net Additional Growth above Existing -2030 ..........................2-34 2-7. Existing and Total Growth-2030............................................................................................ 2-36 3.2-1. Planned Action Study Area Contribution to Forecast 2030 Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled............................................................................................. .... .................................... 3-4 3.2-2. Assumed Land Use and Population Growth for Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations -Planned Action Study Area................................................................................... 3-5 3.2-3. Comparison of GHG Emissions -Planned Action Study Area .................................................... 3-6 3.2-4. Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Contribution to Forecast 2030 Regional VMT......................................................................................................... ...... 3-7 3.2-5. Assumed Land Use and Population Growth for Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations -Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ................................. ........... 3-8 3.2-6. Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions -Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea........................................................................................................... 3-9 3.3-1. Land Cover Summary -Preferred Alternative.........................................................................3-11 3.3-2. Change in Land Cover Summary -Preferred Alternative........................................................3-11 3.5-1. Comparison of Annual Energy Usage -Planned Action Study Area........................................3-21 3.5-2. Comparison of Annual Energy Usage -Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea................................................................................................................. . 3-22 3.6-1. NE Sunset Boulevard Traffic Volumes in Planned Action Study Area.....................................3-23 3.6-2. Modeled Peak -Hour Noise Levels of NE Sunset Boulevard in the Planned Action Study Area............................................................................ . .................................................. 3-23 Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 vi Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Contents 3.6-3. Modeled Day -Night Noise Levels of NE Sunset Boulevard in Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea............................................................................................ 3-24 3.10-1. Current and Proposed Dwellingsl —Preferred Alternative..................................................... 3-35 3.14-1. Study Intersections .............. .................................................................................................... 3-45 3.14-2. Intersection 0perations— Preferred Alternative.....................................................................3-48 3.15-1. Existing and Future Level of Service for Park Facilities in Planned Action Study Area ............ 3-55 3.15-2. Existing and Future Levels of Service for Recreation Facilities in Planned Action StudyArea............................................................................................................................... 3-56 5-1. Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft EIS Comment Letters.......................................5-1 5-2. Responses to Comments...................................................................... ............................... 5-2 Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement v�� 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Contents Figures 2-1. Planned Action Study Area........................................................................................................ 2-2 2-2. Existing Comprehensive Land Use Designations....................................................................... 2-6 2-3. Existing Zoning........................................................................................................................... 2-7 2-4. Sunset Area Neighborhood Framework Diagram for Scoping Purposes.................................2-11 2-5. Age of Structures.......................................................................................... .. 2-17 2-6. Additional Growth by Alternative--2030-Revised................................................................ 2-35 2-7. Additional Dwellings under Each Alternative by Subarea -2030 -Revised ........................... 2-35 2-8. Additional Permanent Jobs under Each Alternative by Subarea-2030-Revised.................2-36 2-9. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Concept -Alternative 2 ........................................ 2-38 2-10. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Concept -Alternative 3 ........................................2-39 2-11. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Concept -Preferred Alternative ...........................2-41 2-12. NE Sunset Boulevard -Alternative Cross Sections West of Harrington Avenue NE - Alternatives1, 2, and 3 ................................... ......................................................................... 2-47 2-13. NE Sunset Boulevard -Alternative Cross Sections West of Harrington Avenue NE - PreferredAlternative............................................................................................................... 2-48 2-14. NE Sunset Boulevard -Alternative 2 Conceptual Layout ........................ ................................ 2-51 2-15. NE Sunset Boulevard -Alternative 3 Conceptual Layout........................................................ 2-53 2-16. NE Sunset Boulevard -Preferred Alternative Conceptual Layout .......................................... 2-55 2-17. Green Connections -Preferred Alternative............................................................................ 2-57 2-18. Public and Open Spaces........................................................................................................... 2-59 2-19. Publicly Owned Sites in Planned Action Study Area............................................................... 2-62 2-20. Alternative 3 -Family Village Concept....................................................................................2-63 3.3-1. Potential Regional Stormwater Facilities and Green Connections..........................................3-14 3.3-2. Proposed Storm Drainage Facilities.........................................................................................3-15 3.14-1. Traffic Study Area and Study Intersections.............................................................................3-45 3.14-2. PM Peak -Hour Traffic -2015 Preferred Alternative.................................................... ............ 3-49 3.14-3. PM Peak -Hour Traffic -2033 Preferred Alternative................................................................ 3-50 3.15-1. Parks and Recreation Facility Service Areas............................................................................ 3-54 3.17-1. Fire -Flow Phasing -Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.................................3-67 Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 vlll Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Contents Volume 2: Appendices Appendix A. Preferred Alternative Evaluation Planned Action Goals and Objectives and LEED ND Qualitative Review Appendix B. Land Capacity Analysis Appendix C. Potential Preferred Alternative Phasing and Variants of Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Conceptual Plans Similar to Preferred Alternative Appendix D. Hillcrest Worksession Appendix E. Proposed Planned Action Ordinance Appendix F. Noise Analysis and Criteria—Preferred Alternative Appendix G. Cultural Resources—Three Sites Study Appendix H. Transportation Analysis—Preferred Alternative Appendix I. Parks and Recreation Analysis—Preferred Alternative Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement �x ICF 593.10 Chapter 1 Summary 1.1 Introduction This Draft Impact Statement (EIS) addresses the Sunset Area Community Planned Action, which includes redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and associated neighborhood growth and revitalization (proposal). Sunset Terrace's redevelopment provides the opportunity to evaluate the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood and determine what future land use redevelopment is desirable and what public service and infrastructure improvements should be made to create a more vibrant and attractive community for residents, businesses, and property owners. This chapter provides a summary of the Draft EIS for the Sunset Area Community Planned Action. It briefly describes the proposal and alternatives and contains an overview of significant environmental impacts identified for the alternatives. Please see Chapter 2 for a more detailed description of the proposal and alternatives and Draft EIS Chapter 4 and Final EIS Chapter 3 for a detailed presentation of impacts of the proposal and alternatives as well as mitigation measures and significant unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after mitigation. Text that has been inserted or deleted since the Draft EIS, including evaluation of a_Preferred Alternative, is shown in underline or strikeout format. 1.2 Proponent The Renton Housing Authority (RHA) is the proponent of the proposal's primary development action, the redevelopment of the existing Sunset Terrace public housing community. As the entity responsible for public service and infrastructure improvements for Sunset Terrace and the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood and for regulating private neighborhood redevelopment, the City of Renton (City) is the proponent of the broader Planned Action that would streamline local permitting and environmental review under Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA; Revised Code of Washington [RCWj 43.210). The City implements SEPA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and is performing joint NEPA/SEPA environmental review in this EIS. 1.2.1 Project Location The Sunset Terrace public housing community is generally bounded by Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE on the north, NE 10th Street on the east, NE Sunset Boulevard (State Route 900) on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west. The Sunset Terrace public housing community is part of the Sunset Area Community neighborhood. This broader neighborhood is the Planned Action Study Area considered in this EIS; it is generally bounded by NE 21st Street on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7th Street on the south, Sunset Area Community Planned Action 1 1 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement icF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 1. Summary and Edmonds Avenue NE to the west. The Sunset Area Community neighborhood is part of northeast Renton and is also known as or referred to as the Highlands area. The Planned Action Study Area has been broken down into subareas to allow the EIS discussion to distinguish the site-specific redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace property from the broader programmatic actions occurring throughout the Planned Action Study Area. The five subareas are shown in Chapter 2 on Figure 2-1 and described below. • Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea includes the Sunset Terrace public housing site and adjacent vacant or non RHA „.. n a RHA -purchased properties being considered for redevelopment into a mixed-use, mixed -income community. This subarea is being analyzed at a site-specific level, and is the primary action under review in this EIS for NEPA purposes. • Sunset Mixed Use Subarea encompasses larger parcels with a mix of uses that are centered on NE Sunset Boulevard (State Route 900). • Central Subarea is a multifamily area containing the current Highlands Library. This subarea is adjacent to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment and Sunset Mixed Use subareas. • North Subarea is made up of lower -density residential north of the Central and Sunset Mixed Use subareas, but also includes park and educational facilities. • South Subarea is a mostly lower -density residential district located south of NE Sunset Boulevard that includes park and educational facilities. 1.3 Proposal Overview The proposal is to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community as part of a Planned Action. Redevelopment of the public housing community and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance would encourage redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area through land use transformation and growth, public service and infrastructure improvements, and a streamlined environmental review process. The components of the proposal are described below. 1.3.1 Sunset Terrace Redevelopment The proposal includes redevelopment of RHA's Sunset Terrace public housing community, a 7.3 -acre property with 100 existing units contained in 27, 50 -year-old, two-story buildings, located at the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE. RHA also owns additional vacant and residential land (approximately 3 acres with two dwelling units) along Edmonds Avenue NE, Glenwood Avenue NE, and Sunset Lane NE, and proposes to purchase additional property adjacent to Sunset Terrace, along Harrington Avenue NE (which contains about 8 dwellings)'; RHA plans to incorporate these additional properties into the Sunset Terrace redevelopment for housing and associated services. Conceptual plans currently propose redevelopment of Sunset Terrace and adjacent properties with mixed -income, mixed-use residential and commercial space and public amenities. The redevelopment would include a 1 -to -1 unit replacement for all 100 existing public housing units, some of which would occur on site and some of which would occur elsewhere in the Planned Action 1 Only proposed under Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative, as described in Section 1.4. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1 icF 553A0 City of Renton Chapter 1. Summary Study Area. It is expected that, with the Sunset Terrace property and associated properties owned or purchased by RHA, up to 479 additional new units could be constructed with a portion of the units being public, affordable, and market -rate. Public amenities would be integrated with the residential development and could include the following: a community gathering space or "third place;" civic facilities such as a community center, senior center, and/or public library space; a new park/open space; retail shopping and commercial space; and green infrastructure. 1.3.2 Other Components of the Planned Action As a result of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment, it is expected that private redevelopment in the 269 -acre Planned Action Study Area would be catalyzed over a 20 -year period. Public service and infrastructure investments that would support both Sunset Terrace redevelopment and redevelopment elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area include: planned or anticipated upgrades to NE Sunset Boulevard and other local streets; stormwater drainage systems; neighborhood parks and recreation facilities; and neighborhood community facilities that may offer education, library, or social services. While some improvements have been anticipated in City plans, some have not (e.g., drainage master plan). To recognize proposed capital improvements, the City will make associated Comprehensive Plan amendments such as to the Capital Facilities and Transportation elements as part of the Planned Action process. 1.3.3 Planned Action Ordinance The City is also proposing to adopt a Planned Action Ordinance pursuant to SEPA. A Planned Action Ordinance, if adopted, would exempt future projects from SEPA threshold determinations or EISs, if they are determined to be consistent with the Sunset Area Community Planned Action EIS assumptions and mitigation measures. By streamlining the redevelopment permit process, the Planned Action Ordinance would increase the likelihood that planned public agency investments would lead to a transformation of the community. 1.4 Proposal Alternatives This section describes the Draft EIS alternatives and identifies the key land use and infrastructure elements of each. The proposal is to promote the redevelopment of public housing, implement infrastructure improvements throughout the Planned Action Study Area, and facilitate planning and environmental review for the Planned Action Study Area. The proposal is reviewed in terms of fourth Fee alternatives. • Alternative 1, No Action. The No Action Alternative represents conditions where Sunset Terrace public housing redevelopment would not occur, and very limited public investment would be implemented in the neighborhood (e.g., some community services but no NE Sunset Boulevard or master drainage plan improvements), resulting in lesser redevelopment across the Planned Action Study Area. A Planned Action would not be designated. The No Action Alternative is required to be studied under NEPA and SEPA. Alternative 2. This alternative represents a moderate level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area based on investment in mixed -income housing and mixed uses in the Potential Sunset Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1 3 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 1. Summary Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, targeted infrastructure and public services throughout the Planned Action Study Area, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. • Alternative 3. This alternative represents the highest level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area, based on investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with a greater number dwellings developed in a mixed -income, mixed-use style, major public investment in study area infrastructure and services, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Preferred Alternative.-Thisalternative represents neighborhood growth similar to and slightlX less than Alternative 3 in the Planned Action Study Area, based on investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with a moderate number of dwellings developed in a mixed -income, mixed-use style oriented around a largerap rk space and loop road, major public investment in study area infrastructure and services, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Each alternative is described in more detail below. 1.4.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 would continue the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications for the Planned Action Study Area, with limited public investment in redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing and in civic and infrastructure improvements in the Planned Action Study Area. With a low level of public investment, private investment in businesses and housing would be limited and would occur incrementally at scattered locations in the Planned Action Study Area. Land use form would largely continue to consist of single -use residential and single -use commercial developments with an occasional mix of uses. The development pattern would begin to transition incrementally from its current suburban pattern to a village center, but this transition would occur slowly overtime due to the relatively low level of investment in public housing redevelopment and Planned Action Study Area improvements. A Planned Action would not be designated and each proposed development would be subject to individual environmental review. Some pedestrian- and transit -oriented development would occur, but it would be the exception rather than the rule, because new development would represent a small portion of the overall Planned Action Study Area. More piecemeal development could preclude opportunities for leveraging and combining strategies among individual projects. In the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, RHA would develop affordable housing and senior housing with supporting health services on two vacant properties, but it would not redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing property. The City would not make major infrastructure improvements. NE Sunset Boulevard would continue to emphasize vehicular mobility with less attention on pedestrian and transit facilities and limited aesthetic appeal (e.g., sparse landscaping). Drainage systems would continue as presently configured; any improvements would be localized, incremental, and in compliance with the City's existing stormwater regulations. The current Highlands Library would be relocated from the Central Subarea to another location in the Planned Action Study Area; since a new site ha has not been selected; as of the Draft EIS in DecQmbe>r2010tbi, altQEnative assumes a new community services building in the study area of sufficient size to house a library or other social service. Parks and recreation services would largely continue as they exist today. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1 4 ICF 593.10 City of Renton 1.4.2 Alternative 2 Chapter 1. Summary Alternative 2 provides for a moderate level of mixed -income housing and mixed uses in the Planned Action Study Area, while continuing the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications for the Planned Action Study Area. Infrastructure and public services would be improved in a targeted manner in the Planned Action Study Area. Stand-alone residential uses and local -serving commercial development would continue but would be interspersed with mixed-use development at identified nodes throughout the Planned Action Study Area such as the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and portions of NE Sunset Boulevard. Densities of new development would occur at moderate urban levels that are pedestrian- and transit -oriented. The environmental review process for development would be streamlined under a Planned Action Ordinance. RHA would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community according to a master plan on properties it currently owns; the redevelopment would allow for new public, affordable and market - rate housing accommodating a mixed -income community. All 100 existing public housing units would be replaced at a 1 -to -1 ratio; some would occur on the current Sunset Terrace public housing property and some elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area; a duplex would be replaced with affordable townhouse units. An estimated 310 new dwellings would be developed in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, with more moderate -density flats and townhomes at a combined density of approximately 40 units per acre. New public amenities would include civic and community facilities, which may include a single -use library building with a plaza and/or a community services center/office building, as well as ground -floor retail, as required by zoning, and a proposed 0.89 -acre park. Senior housing on RHA's Piha site (See Chapter 2, Section 2.7.2.2) would include supportive health services. NE Sunset Boulevard would be improved to meet the intent of the City Complete Streets standards (Renton Municipal Code [RMC] 4-6-060). Improvements would largely occur within the current right-of-way and would allow for signal improvements, expanded sidewalks, greater landscaping, new transit shelters and street furniture, pedestrian- and street -level lighting, a bike lane/multi- purpose trail in one direction, consolidated driveways, and a center median with left -turn vehicle storage. No on -street business parking would be available (consistent with current conditions). Natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated in design of streets, parks, and new development. Options for green infrastructure are addressed in Chapter 2, Section 2.7.2.4. Active and passive recreation opportunities would be retained and enhanced through coordination between the Renton School District and the City such as through a joint -use agreement. Possible locations for enhancement include a reconfigured Hillcrest Early Childhood Center and North Highlands Park and repurposed public properties or acquired private properties in areas where demand for recreation is anticipated to be higher. 1.4.3 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 provides for a high level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area while maintaining the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications for the Planned Action Study Area. RHA would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community as part of redevelopment of the entire Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea into a mixed - income, mixed-use development according to a master plan. This alternative also includes major Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1 $ ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 1_ Summary public investment in Planned Action Study Area transportation, drainage, sewer, water, cultural, educational, and parks and recreation facilities. This public investment in Sunset Terrace and neighborhood infrastructure and services would catalyze private property reinvestment at a greater scale and realize the existing permitted zoning uses and density, which would create greater opportunities for market -rate and affordable homeownership and rental housing opportunities, and for local and regional shopping opportunities. Land use patterns would be of an urban intensity focused along the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor and allow for vertical and horizontal mixed uses. Similar to Alternative 2, environmental review of development would be streamlined with a Planned Action Ordinance. It is expected that, with the Sunset Terrace property and associated properties owned or purchased by RHA, up to 479 additional new units could be created, some of which would be public, affordable, and/or market -rate, resulting in a density of approximately 52 units per acre. The existing 100 public housing units would be replaced at a 1 -to -1 ratio. Replacement of the public housing units would occur on the current public housing site and elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area; the other duplex units located adjacent to Sunset Terrace would be replaced with townhouse units, some affordable and some market -rate. Public amenities would be integrated with the residential development and could include the following: a community gathering space in a vacated Harrington Avenue NE (at Sunset Lane NE), a new recreation/community center and senior center, a new public library in a mixed-use building, a new park and open space, retail shopping and commercial space, and/or green infrastructure. The civic and recreation spaces could act as a "third place." A "family village" in the North Subarea would provide an opportunity for integrated reinvestment in housing, education, recreation, and supportive services designed to promote a healthy, walkable, and neighborhood -friendly community. NE Sunset Boulevard would be transformed to improve all forms of mobility and to create an inviting corridor through urban design amenities. A wider right-of-way would allow for intersection improvements, bike lanes in both directions, and sidewalks. Improvements to traffic operations at intersections would prioritize transit vehicles; there would also be a planted median with left -turn storage, and u -turns. Improved sidewalks and crosswalks together with streetscape elements such as street trees, transit shelters, street furniture, public art, and lighting would promote walkability. Added bike lanes would promote nonmotorized transportation. Natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated in design of streets, parks, and new development. Options for green infrastructure are addressed in Section 2.7.2.4. Active and passive recreation opportunities would be retained and enhanced. For example, the family village concept would allow for blending of education services outside the conventional K-12 spectrum such as early childhood education, the North Highlands Park, and RHA senior housing. Joint -use agreements could be forged between the City and the Renton School District to allow for public use of school grounds for parks and recreation purposes during non -school hours. When public properties are no longer needed for present uses, they could be repurposed for parks and recreation, 1.4.4 Preferred Alternative An environmentally preferable alternative that best meets NEPA's goals to reduce impacts on natural and cultural features is required to be identified, no later than in the Final EIS. Designation of a preferred alternative is optional under SEPA. The City and RHA have identified an Sunset Area Community Planned Action 1-6 April 2411 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 1. Summary environmentally preferred alternative within the range of the Draft EIS Alternatives 1 through 3. The Preferred Alternative provides for: • mixed-use growth and LraaajtAujj2onmotorized transportation im rovements that result in regionally beneficial air quality -a, ergy effects, • a drainaMMUtQr plan that promotes green infrastructure and improves water quality, • expansion of parks and recreation facilities. and • greater housing and „12b opportunities. Key-eattrres are identified below. The Emfierred Alternative provides for growth in the Planned Action Study Area simila,[„tQbut less than Alt native_ 3. while maintaining the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifiCatiQns for the Planned Action Study Area. New growth in the neighborhood would be about 7% less thaa under Alternative 3. This reflects the preferred conceptual plan for th Potential Sunset Terrace Red evelopment_Sub-are.a and refinements of a land capacity analvsis resented in Final EIS Appendix B. Similar to Alternative ed Alternative includes redevelopment of Sunset Terrace well as a major public investment nned Action Study Area transportation systems drainage, w and water systems& and cultural dparks and recreation facilities. This ublic investment in Sunset Terrace and nei h t t c ure and services would catalyze rivate property reinvestment at a greater scale and realize the, exi5ti,ngpermitted zoning uses and density, which would create greater opportunities for market -rate and ail rdable homeownership and rental housing opportunities and for local and regional shopping opportua tga, Land use patterns would be Qf an urban intensity focused along the NE Sunset Boulevard cora aAu and would allow for vertical and hg j.j&,,ta1 mixed uses, Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3. environmentalreview of developm n ysDj ld_be streamlined with a Planned Action Ordinance. RHA would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing comgtl,t ni y as part of redevelopment of the entire Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. It would be redeveloped into a mixedjacome, mixed-use development according to a master planfeat,uLing a "central” park of about 2.65 acres and a lool2 Load, With a larger l2ark st2ace, the densAy of the Sunset Terrace development would be lower than ujidox Alternatives 2 and 3 at 33 units per acre though some density would hift outside the subareaportions of the Planned Action Study Area see further discussion below). Public amenities wouldbe, integrated with the mixed-use development and could contain the following: a new park spaace,,jacluding over a segment of Harrington Avenue NE (at Sunset Lane NE) to be vacated: a reconfigu,t,e,d,S,unset Lane NE along the library that could be used as a 121azan an elderdac nterm a new public libraryin a sin le- ur ose uil in • retail shopping and commercial space: and green infrastructure. The civic and recreation spaces could act as a "third place. Similar to Alternative e in the North Subarea would rovide an opportunity f integrated reinvestment in housing, education, rec,i-,Q,atim and supportive services designed to promote a healthy, walkable, and neighborhood -friendly community. NE Sunset Boulevard would be transformed. similar to ttrtd,Qr Alternative 3. to improve all forms of mobility and create an inviting corridor through urban designnam,cniji.C5 improvements to traffic operations at j=Esections would prioritize transit vehicles: there would also be a plapted median Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-� ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 1. Summary with left -turn lanes at intersections and two high-volume, mid -block driveway locations. Improved sidewalks and crosswalks, together with streetscape elements such as street trees, transit shelters, street furniture, public art, and lighting, would promote walkability. A multi -use trail along the west side of NE Sunset Boulevard would promote nonmotorized transportation. In addition to the multi- use trail on the west side of NE Sunset Boulevard, an eastbound bike lane would run from Edmonds Avenue NE up the hill to the City's bike route on NE 10th Street. Natural stormwater in rf astructure would be integrated in design of streets. parks, and new development, similar to under Alternative 3. Several residential streets (designated as green connections) in the neighborhood would be transformed to improve pedestrian mobility, mitigate stormwater impacts (both for water quality and flow reduction), and create an inviting corridor to enhance the neighborhood. In addition to the Green Connections projects, the City would implement regional detention/retention improvements to provide advance mitigation for future increases in impervious area that could result from redevelopment Options for green infrastructure are addressed in Section 2.7.2.4. Active and passive recreation opportunities would be retained and enhanced. This would include the 2.65 -acre central park at Sunset Terrace. Due to the relocation and consolidation of Sunset Court Park at Sunset Terrace, as well as the proposed vacation of a portion of Harrington Avenue NE, the centralap rk space would be enlarged compared to the other alternatives to better meet the _needs _of the increased populationi h Sunset ur Park property would redevelop with familY village would allow for blending of education serviQs.idtside the conventional K-12 spectrum such as early childhood education. the North Highlands Parulde forged e w n the City and the Renton School District to allow for public use of school grounds for parks and recreation purposes during non -school hours. When public properties are no longer needed for present uses, they could be repurposed for other public purposes, such as parks and recreation. 1.5 Summary of Impacts Tablel-1 highlights the impacts that would potentially result from the alternatives analyzed in this Draft EIS. The summary table is not intended to be a substitute for the complete discussion of each element that is contained in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS. For a complete discussion of the environmental elements considered in the Draft EIS, please refer to Draft -EUS _Chap-Ur_4-and Final EIS Chapter I Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-8 ICF 593.10 U O.. M d r% .y a L T t� C L N i. ?1 a Q a. C � C rti a o V L U 3 n O S Q N Id U > ma a v ca m Car cd a v o G " }' a C bb -.. w pm Y O N i C � a rC np O +� M G cn6. C Y ftj Q 65 •D C�_ ,a � � v C '� y V 4 a b G1 ?� V7 V7 V] V) C O Ui U Gd tz V) V} L y 7 N O 2r b v v d i 'C in' .C' ., OU L 0 O. p O 4fli 4 C .0 s' Rip y + V O O [4. Y 4 D y p., a t4 'Y C C a W- V] C Y c _ L o ro t6 a '!�' 'L �' F4 O Lam'. U 'C S'i bo rC O O O •� Vl L A R. ju C as U D '� - N C Y •p y y '? p v as (� U C G4 U Y .� Vl L 4l O O O L, sa., Y C C Gi a 6 3 •C O D rYn •C .�' - C v s, C U ~O .`� R, ti C U •E '«+ Y '� •a ^b a, L u �f°��• �� y aL o acdr m c °�° vQ vb �m a C = O 'U iC .`� as [� o P C �y Ga F Yv, C N u -0nA ami Yv, C O i ° y •� �" Y -C vy .°p u o S -a •Fr + Q7 Q. ; ,L' L '� 4.) QQ} 2 L Sr Cy/1 N _°' p, 41 Vl Yv, 4i y y o" v Q4% .0 O, v rC Lw O cCd 7 i cO 'C C -''u'' cz O v ;° '6 O O L O V �.,.. O cam. y k = c._. i, :+ i..; Y- L O f-. N U L •Q.r CL .fl y U 4 C]. aJ O[ as E- O O T5 O n y U v B M cu u CD 0 7 'CC rd to tv cC C C C C,7 SC f0 a � a L 4u Q L L SC CC {S --C+- Gii Q Q Q ¢ C d v rncc f4 SQ � b �n � w w v Ctl RS SC SC N 9J ] VI � v: cn C � C rti a o V L U 3 n O S Q N Id U > ma a v ca m Car cd a v o G " }' a C bb -.. w pm Y O N i C � a rC np O +� M G cn6. C Y ftj Q 65 •D C�_ ,a � � v C '� y V 4 a b G1 ?� V7 V7 V] V) C O Ui U Gd tz V) V} L y 7 N O 2r b v v d i 'C in' .C' ., OU L 0 O. p O 4fli 4 C .0 s' Rip y + V O O [4. Y 4 D y p., a t4 'Y C C a W- V] C Y c _ L o ro t6 a '!�' 'L �' F4 O Lam'. U 'C S'i bo rC O O O •� Vl L A R. ju C as U D '� - N C Y •p y y '? p v as (� U C G4 U Y .� Vl L 4l O O O L, sa., Y C C Gi a 6 3 •C O D rYn •C .�' - C v s, C U ~O .`� R, ti C U •E '«+ Y '� •a ^b a, L u �f°��• �� y aL o acdr m c °�° vQ vb �m a C = O 'U iC .`� as [� o P C �y Ga F Yv, C N u -0nA ami Yv, C O i ° y •� �" Y -C vy .°p u o S -a •Fr + Q7 Q. ; ,L' L '� 4.) QQ} 2 L Sr Cy/1 N _°' p, 41 Vl Yv, 4i y y o" v Q4% .0 O, v rC Lw O cCd 7 i cO 'C C -''u'' cz O v ;° '6 O O L O V �.,.. O cam. y k = c._. i, :+ i..; Y- L O f-. N U L •Q.r CL .fl y U 4 C]. aJ O[ as E- O O T5 O n y U v B M cu u CD 0 7 'CC rd to tv cC C C C C,7 SC f0 N � Q Q Q Q L 4u Q V G SC CC {S --C+- Gii Q Q Vl V V7 N [tl f4 SQ 41 Q} U GS cu m Ctl RS SC SC N 9J C � C rti a o V L U 3 n O S Q N Id U > ma a v ca m Car cd a v o G " }' a C bb -.. w pm Y O N i C � a rC np O +� M G cn6. C Y ftj Q 65 •D C�_ ,a � � v C '� y V 4 a b G1 ?� V7 V7 V] V) C O Ui U Gd tz V) V} L y 7 N O 2r b v v d i 'C in' .C' ., OU L 0 O. p O 4fli 4 C .0 s' Rip y + V O O [4. Y 4 D y p., a t4 'Y C C a W- V] C Y c _ L o ro t6 a '!�' 'L �' F4 O Lam'. U 'C S'i bo rC O O O •� Vl L A R. ju C as U D '� - N C Y •p y y '? p v as (� U C G4 U Y .� Vl L 4l O O O L, sa., Y C C Gi a 6 3 •C O D rYn •C .�' - C v s, C U ~O .`� R, ti C U •E '«+ Y '� •a ^b a, L u �f°��• �� y aL o acdr m c °�° vQ vb �m a C = O 'U iC .`� as [� o P C �y Ga F Yv, C N u -0nA ami Yv, C O i ° y •� �" Y -C vy .°p u o S -a •Fr + Q7 Q. ; ,L' L '� 4.) QQ} 2 L Sr Cy/1 N _°' p, 41 Vl Yv, 4i y y o" v Q4% .0 O, v rC Lw O cCd 7 i cO 'C C -''u'' cz O v ;° '6 O O L O V �.,.. O cam. y k = c._. i, :+ i..; Y- L O f-. N U L •Q.r CL .fl y U 4 C]. aJ O[ as E- O O T5 O n y U v B M cu u CD 0 'CC rd to tv cC C C C N N � Q Q Q Q Lm SC CC {S --C+- Gii m S� a Cr U7 V) V] r-1 —4 r-1 H CS 4J N 41 cu m b r G a C N 9J G1 5J Q Q ¢ Q fAJ V V tC cG cl M CD to (I1 Q] % E �`is E m fC fC V) H v ar w a cv � c6 cyC �fA C) V7 V5 [/] V] n C � C rti a o V L U 3 n O S Q N Id U > ma a v ca m Car cd a v o G " }' a C bb -.. w pm Y O N i C � a rC np O +� M G cn6. C Y ftj Q 65 •D C�_ ,a � � v C '� y V 4 a b G1 ?� V7 V7 V] V) C O Ui U Gd tz V) V} L y 7 N O 2r b v v d i 'C in' .C' ., OU L 0 O. p O 4fli 4 C .0 s' Rip y + V O O [4. Y 4 D y p., a t4 'Y C C a W- V] C Y c _ L o ro t6 a '!�' 'L �' F4 O Lam'. U 'C S'i bo rC O O O •� Vl L A R. ju C as U D '� - N C Y •p y y '? p v as (� U C G4 U Y .� Vl L 4l O O O L, sa., Y C C Gi a 6 3 •C O D rYn •C .�' - C v s, C U ~O .`� R, ti C U •E '«+ Y '� •a ^b a, L u �f°��• �� y aL o acdr m c °�° vQ vb �m a C = O 'U iC .`� as [� o P C �y Ga F Yv, C N u -0nA ami Yv, C O i ° y •� �" Y -C vy .°p u o S -a •Fr + Q7 Q. ; ,L' L '� 4.) QQ} 2 L Sr Cy/1 N _°' p, 41 Vl Yv, 4i y y o" v Q4% .0 O, v rC Lw O cCd 7 i cO 'C C -''u'' cz O v ;° '6 O O L O V �.,.. O cam. y k = c._. i, :+ i..; Y- L O f-. N U L •Q.r CL .fl y U 4 C]. aJ O[ as E- O O T5 O n y U v B M 'CC c9 cC cC C C C Y Y Y Q Q Q Q cc ca c) cC C � C rti a o V L U 3 n O S Q N Id U > ma a v ca m Car cd a v o G " }' a C bb -.. w pm Y O N i C � a rC np O +� M G cn6. C Y ftj Q 65 •D C�_ ,a � � v C '� y V 4 a b G1 ?� V7 V7 V] V) C O Ui U Gd tz V) V} L y 7 N O 2r b v v d i 'C in' .C' ., OU L 0 O. p O 4fli 4 C .0 s' Rip y + V O O [4. Y 4 D y p., a t4 'Y C C a W- V] C Y c _ L o ro t6 a '!�' 'L �' F4 O Lam'. U 'C S'i bo rC O O O •� Vl L A R. ju C as U D '� - N C Y •p y y '? p v as (� U C G4 U Y .� Vl L 4l O O O L, sa., Y C C Gi a 6 3 •C O D rYn •C .�' - C v s, C U ~O .`� R, ti C U •E '«+ Y '� •a ^b a, L u �f°��• �� y aL o acdr m c °�° vQ vb �m a C = O 'U iC .`� as [� o P C �y Ga F Yv, C N u -0nA ami Yv, C O i ° y •� �" Y -C vy .°p u o S -a •Fr + Q7 Q. ; ,L' L '� 4.) QQ} 2 L Sr Cy/1 N _°' p, 41 Vl Yv, 4i y y o" v Q4% .0 O, v rC Lw O cCd 7 i cO 'C C -''u'' cz O v ;° '6 O O L O V �.,.. O cam. y k = c._. i, :+ i..; Y- L O f-. N U L •Q.r CL .fl y U 4 C]. aJ O[ as E- O O T5 O n y U v B M T {II m y b Lb ,r LA i b 3 R d ��••� `G C 7 O 7 m d 7 m m d — a 3 D m � n o' '•' to ' C .o M 0 n Dtq CD a' G n G O O CD .O CD H O _ 'i3 R- n rtrt Aa C O O 0 --s O N CCD O• W C' O� O Cr d — W '2 n- n X 0 r CDD G °' N ti 'U Z 'C v5 O rt ^. rt n Q. n w fD w O 7 (A C -22 ❑ a O O. fD W CD O 1 (<D rD rn G rt C v0+ - ro w O CD CD w C y n `� a W _ a cm o ]rt„ rD Q- a o `� a rn ❑ o- p a w �, C ti O m o ryD a� n y n ~ '� N R 'C Qy G 'a a G ❑, -n C9 rn f-trr x m CD y o a fl. w h °' Z n a ~' r, L?3 o A p ca .0 CD Al - C ..S x 'G O � n � =. o O rr rn .y � O w a '2 rD w w a� O m `C O w �. '7 O cn n n Da ❑ =' CD n O n m of ai ti ..� ❑ rD FD n ❑ n O a❑ rt G n• � - ❑ O °1 w C CD G- ,-,., d N G Aa ,� p- 'O (�? C/a ,,,,� n p rt a CZ to n �„* ;,r ❑ 7 Ln CD FV r - n -1[D p= dA C SJ. EA C Q a. Q' f]. rcnr r�•r Q, E: vr' 9d =j O• O' H �. a 9i "��' �' _ R -n r-' n O a [n r�* C ,�' rD {D rDai rt qe ❑ s .1 "' � " w [D m d CA LO) r•' R1 EA CA `* ¢� N O•' '� - CSD a- CD aw `C rD a0 � W O - 1 '2 n Qq CDn v 67 . t fD �� r3 CDD 'Q 7' mrD cc c�D Cu 21 rD ¢= p, ni p a o .a o �' n ,n.F R m a cD a a s G G rD o n. �:r y n rD o rL a n �A cn n � .-� vi w Qq rD � 'A M fD ❑ (DW n w [n fl7 rn y c< Q- r�rr�7 y w rD M rD m r rD m m .b .f. 'CS O '••t ..1 G d rD ❑ 7 n �. �' O m Mrt CDD r -r _. rDLl rnr C r�r C r r rt m V) w E y a61 A7 Ai v " In ^'! [n rn D! N o CL L1 rt rt a a ¢ c rr3 cc rD F' a a 14 O O rt 0 0 o o o n G f�D r�D n to o ayi ams r7 W Q S�. 'rty b7 Z �? W rD CD CD y a FL fD SD m n C mrt G rD C 7 p TS * CT r- ti rr A� rD = `� rt w d rD rt❑-fDi to m m r, R rs C O rt rt "1 TJ G O A� rt � "CS r -r R w rDrC� p n i>• rC+ m On `C 0 n N rND O v, teb rD CD EA w CA h 2) w m m m m CCD L4 ain m 'n aW rD v a rD CD m a m rD <D a ac• r m rD o Q a a cn cn cn CD G Tq (D p m rD o o a a C R rD < 7 vii O' N w•' � C CD CD p•' h3 Q' � rD � ns r* a n � m `v9i r* a n C•' ro. rOWr ro. w w m rD �m CLrD W cu aw aD' w w cu m CD (6 rD a �_ a L C. v_ a C C n n rD m rt w p o �+ b W a a r4 CLa D O "O O r•r N C U) CD CD rD 23 w n CD Ic "LI 0 w c a m rt m n rD .b n� rDa a r. rnr O a a N ❑ a n o' a i a U; n 0 rD 3 O 3 C- C Ki K a a c U U Q Q v tea, v C C C C K K ro r cc Cc ro Q c a c a s d E E E O D 41 -C C Q1 -p o Q7 u u u � ¢ d mro ro m C K .� •b C .� 'L7 K .v T: � d Q I9 ro '3 .� N •? -� N •� -� CV cin in c`n° cyi°i cn vs 41 Q 4, td �lu fA Qy �- E n¢ E Q E c Q K C C a o 0 u u u � ¢ d mro ro m C G C G C C C G C � d Q I9 ro O E u E � E i D f0 fL cin in c`n° cyi°i cn vs a C. C, R O K O C O D a O m m a C C C mro ro m C G C C G C ° sn ri a V sn Ul n C C C D a O � 41 4J C G C C G C ro ro ro ro ro ro � d Q I9 ro O E u E � E i D f0 fL O _ L Y p r u i+ ¢C5 41 C ❑ o r3 v ani 7, ro H w OV CU x M �� c� .o v �' v A `m c v o •o Ld cc 75 vYj H r •OV Q. 'On "P� cu n mm y a rD M o Un m 3 v so rD �• = w w w cnC4 rD rD 's7 m 5 C C a -D 3 > w n O ' > w O O A.' �' �' C G a s m °rr—' Ort G 0 x - � 0 [D rD m n0 °; p 0 5 '0 > " b � 0 rD w w -1 rC w rw-' w Cr rD ro �• rt y M- W 0 C rr -C w LL2 R 4a !G "� C w O y O y E. 97 �^p w .,y ., rD = y w .p .Y C C .y rD `'G cn ¢, 'S = .= ro C C O w C C C U4 ro M n O y rr w rD `C ro Cl. - ��' G O .O 9n7 0. �+ v' C '.'s7 �. + 3 w f °. M o o °rt' 'i7 o y a' 9 ^o o w w �.ca m . _ .:..r C' _ O C = W CD F3 rD �' G <• C C -ni ro w O rD o p Oq rD 27 ro rt O [n rD 0 (D n rc rL CD n w .n to o n O C O '-'� -y 0 o R• o ro W w 7 O W rD D- iD cn `C �• C C rt rt� ro ro C C C rD w cn = Q4 rt n C _ .p to a �' tD N [•Ch W r* rww-r 907 An7 O O w O. O �• �. m N rr3 Q, `CI ID o �. O N ro C `D 0'Q O G @ rD R to O 'b C n n O C D7 vs y R w C G < -$S[ O w w rD G n M '•r _' w a•, _ 'C y rp m O C rte• ^ti w rD rL W 1 (Dr. CD 97 0 CD G � rn-r �n CD @ CO., T w v, w w C rD w m CD 0 0 m 9ro7 10 IL 0 7 a ° �. °, ct) An7 0 m rr O cyn 7r m z 'xY y fCD �•rtndG-a. v, 0 O ?r�O p. rD <-DC) N 4 w o 9i v= Ort C= C r=r ID a rt ^, Arte �• �. w rD O y R A7 Q, (D A7 Z w as y 4 SD W CD_ rD 27 rL rD �- �' w m 97 w �' no c o m w i m fD r° a CD in = K rD O O❑= ro 'Y R• 0r 0 L UG A. CC rt V7 C w 'R-. ,� "ICL rt rD p C rD (6SD cj �C O y C "f• OC 9 V C n `C cn r3 ro w rD M O rD n M p, t4 O O C vi a 7 CD rt `C a' o r%r rA rD ',� w [D cD R H n7i rt. 3 -t G 01 c ro Ort w w C7 CA V5 V7 w �* w v rD tm rD = rD o rD ro 907l 9 m �• cii •-i rwr C � O_ rD CD �, w pj .d y rL N G7 p 7 N �" '.� C '•'Y 97 rD � N �} W Q C rt rLCL D7 rD CDr•r rD rD ti = rD w 'Y n 0 '� C rr rr � � 9Vi7 � m � � ut 'wt vwi '�' _ -�•r w w -� rD „0,s m O O �-M. Cl. m W CDw Zr0•r rL m CD w [rtn n n V, [', O. rD •yr O rD in p O O C 0 ro �, n = C C ro ro = n 0 7 27 n C1] rt Er 0 vi CL @ R v y ro w tm y O "s C a C rD ° a C C1 w rt a cn C rt v7 Q• rt ro ^3 r%r -n C t O -rDs d rD O y 'C C° w a o Cr -ti � � 0 w e•r' w '~ L) rn R 0 0 o •�.,� W R W O CD CD SD Crq ro O rrt � 0 Q y a. _ rt rD .0 rD m M Do w .'T �' w a N C= c7q K O. w C -pe-DigrrD O Qt CrD � -r, O% '� rD N (D N rrot 7 "J' A7 ro C y > rr rt CM C m m C n' rD 0 C w rD n w w rD r(D C rY rY L7 rD rD n '� rw0 a)-' rwr C C• (D C rD rD C. C• O C 'S' O v _ n= im- r-L C V] w. rt' w m�. m p O N C n� w Nro O w w_ w M w w (D m -: _ -z a 0 dO O �' 9 rt "p C_ S' Lo rD ' rD :zr rt •a37a ^y w S Ort -r n O '7.s, o %7 CD 0 CD (D rt • y 0, CD w i -0 rD vwi DC7 cu C -w5 T C N CLCD 0= aro C(D < C< w rr C v a (D • R ro.. p .S n• ro s' vi CD C ro 5i y. C C a O o. rr CD ro O ro = C D �, n rt C w 10 N ~ R O w rD �- M rt Cu O F-* a CRD El _ o� rr ro N a r y _ w rr rt W b m [P m CL a _ n 2 T 0 ri T w m r 3 3 w C- :L LY a Lt e� 0 L5 L ro L_ .J U rl b0 p Y �; y CS r7j� ro �+ 01 F O. 41 •y cn +U-+ 4 L O Ln '9 E rFtl N C G d L�4 sL. C Gi p g W O U1ro C4 4J Y SU. U Y t6 F rtl 'v 'B O y Y U v U 'CS 4J rn cn U ro y to r p G U un L L Q O p O z V" O C w 6 p 0 E-' L u C 0n LY ra j 7 O F" C c,.. '6 u rL cu E ti [n r -I ti o ti O rri 41 N m � L w V Q y !Z cu E ti [n r -I 41 L ro F L 9J ro N ro S/] rl Y ro L m Y � ID to Cn a .ro C L 4J ro a ro LnN a t C ami N v a y 7 tts bC.O G.. F cn H OC p r�C sG...�' O F E O 'D C ro o 3� a o o P R. m y O C a L E- Q� CG C O. bD v L L +-' 'n F' O L CLj d o v'U° cn a%o 0 3 D (u:10 C PG m .? VI v O L .F L1' b CL ro E .r— p a y a V) > � a v U � L a :i H cn C O � a E m m l/j C C u m w p � o E w O � CL O U vi d CL w 5 C C ._ Ln � LL P a. w o m o ti .S O m fD sn m c ro .v w r� w °= n t~6 w no m as o 1 a � rra Pr fD °+ rq -1 ro (D -� m v C M w. N ..t ro � G a sa -- r? R' R q CD O � w rD CD rD rD CD ro �- < CL o M C. rw rD C� O rD o rD w .n R o. � O y v � rt rt - n y R O b rD D .O � C d � � O L W ju ,f t rD Di O crort rn w ro r~D C ro ° ro � P, � S C w 7 C rt O rD !D -o ', a C '* �-n rp rD rD Lf) C C C co P d 0 aCD w 4 w CD G � G � M w Q N w � O C D � rt � o � w ro ro rA V) z ro � r�r SD rt C CO rn K(D a o s y CTQ � a a a rt ro -s 7 w rD w n ;A w fD -03, L C C)0 N a❑ m w o o "= n y �. q cD ix C L) rD G C) 4 lu M = W rfpn n. rtD w w j 1 n Oa C•' d 0 V 'a O. ro D, m C= AO ti -v v) �n GS C')L+777n w �' rD 6 '4 C ❑ ro O P. r) ❑ w m ro vtA �* aT rr rl O ro ro C' o 'Cl G m ° m o ro .%t ❑ w c -r C7 -t o. CD N D<i vwi f=9 rt ❑^roi rt ¢. ;_ w •v n -r p o O A O `y �. n p rr rn 'C7 t rp K a o -t R ti y [n Uj• R C G w G .� o w r<o c m< ❑ n `C = - � ❑ w O d Q �� C ro ms rtcn LA [D z F 7• " C7 Al F w❑ rt �* C C rD n ❑ .G.t ro , py m r-L'�' w m rD „t p `° a y c C w o r m a rpD -c Otii rD a -t ucQ vca m ^s n C) y 2_ ro Cr) �� n '6 G C p N n. ¢• �• V _Q. � G rPo -wi -- M w O. rjj '�,�' C cnn c O '_t ti n rD p •� C '-� n oGa Q �• tt7 p f7 w x O m O' m W =• p O QG4 n ¢= 7 AO w ❑ '� ° 9) L7 p C, to fD f6• 7 �' .y 6) '� C' C p w rD rn A rt Co O rt• y Cb V fD G (D a G o N [aq �D `G y n R fD rD � G cron 6) n C p G r�rLel rt �' pi .rt7 CD �. n W Q. .nR.. a0 't%r 'o rD n " rD w w `C tp `G ro �' ro ro CDrA 0, rp @ rRD rD to .❑f. Ono in CL -1 - � Q-7� w G rD rD w '17 as ro b w rD p n `C rt Cl .b m M a S '� W .wy = w fl rn G to r �. W w rD p rt rr a o. fl. rt p cn rD pq '" a aLn-3 cco D y p n Ro w G m CD q 7 rt w ^7 o p v p w w �• ASS ro w SID R rD r�A �' 0. n CT7 rrDD '� w 7 �• ❑ S p � m p ,art•, rD P O v7 rD w w� b w F 9 7 G w� Y rD 0 C rD mi rD P.. ❑ ro Z m O y Q. w ,ic o• O to rp G O G p w 7 a C R G q rD ti G w tn P iD G --h O rpA A) r�D tln C O n rt p �* a m rD rD rD "9 O 'Cf O rD O * O rD V) C DJ �' rD 4) n ro rs rn ❑ G rt' R v 'A v C' !"` '.' n C -o+•, D w q C w V . t w rt rp .NJ p O O rD ro R O P R P.. rD C• � v, ,nt w rD `C rD ,� ^wz �- W G fD a CD rLrt rD o r6 rD C(Q p `•I m w w oQ V] "�' w f1 "i p7 V1CL DC rA rD ,'� rD G G rD OG. w w 6 fD r=' C (DD =° "C ° rrDD G W n r79 H . �' obDi r< p, Qq .y (DrD o W3 cm 'C7 O ¢" o . OqCD 9 , n d rD 7 f6 vai 'C w 7 o G rt r- rn rt. ❑ a -� r' O rn , ii �'C = -s 7 vc. 'M m O a ro y O O •'� O Q -•s w e pQ p;.W CO C� CD ro w w rt rt p �.CD ❑ �' p a• n '~..� ro N G y rp7 L .G^. 7° rt N tQ L, M• .w.t Ln n cp CAn n a O w fD rD w rD rD - rD w a w (M O w "1 ro 'S :4= •Z rD �-h "ri rD to rD ••t (A w rort A. )" w w C. rt .Y .,p ro rD 'D ro 'P G 'Cf C. �•r n CA ro , ❑ m rD ro C w rr uq N ro rt' kp ti cci -rti k 'nY. W7 `C r -r "' n rt' ro. ❑ A) yn CD (DD ° G fD �• O w rD rD a A) "3' R _• O rD U7 w G rwr ro w un rD O 'o "r G O ^. CG p arti n ro O N r�r @ ti v rD rD a aQ G 7 A DA Oo ro N ro p D n @ cyDS a ry ., c 4 rD p fD C rD Q N w .� rq o R su T UQ ro s O G1 Q C EL O W ti vi p O A rr -qn w C cn v w w • c w; A �• n o rt m Wa ro fD ul y m "++ D rD w o rD rt n• ,C rD O rD ro rt oQ G 'i M (A fO M G[ G9 °' p '-i m N Vi rL rt CD C r6 74 ° -Cs p 7 Gn ro M d4 [�D D G Ca a y O y O n a rD LYs q' G ❑- a. 0'Q n C rt M rt w W rD rt '� ". N n0 ,.,_ C �- a n r 'C G ¢'w rt "O 'nl C Q -h -s G Q d M rD O. * G rD w ro rn m n p 'I Lh a p .b rD p r9 w R p rD m ro '* ro rD CD ro w p w C 7Q w r^,. W R ro rT. p C `< w 7 w �" ''� R rD w art O rr rt A rD R rD 67 n = m y rD p. m. t ro rD Ln Ort y^ n aq C r<o v �' ?+ 7 ro C �' G m F.- � w � ❑ rD vCi rD LA a � � ¢ rwr mi � n _ eb rpCD w H w ro cn z y ro m a C C < -t `Y w rr rr O '•y CCD m ... F CL p O" "t w rwr 7 9 a ) 7 W cn' '* c c R ti o rt m o 11 GMEL ea w k CL .. P .. h a y n <Lrl (DD w . rp ro rt y rw•r •- O w 'O p rD pi r ❑ rD R �- ro H fD ti,4 95 rD cri c a C: ro cp O rt T V h D CD rt Z rw -h R re�C Ul rD cn n (D WrD "TrofD Drq N•rD p ro O rw•' w vroi � rt rt ,� -s w '-1Cu rb Im rDrD CD w rD � �• fp C M C L 7 (Ln cj rD n r W rD 3 Oh w w rDrrDl a a a rt ro -s 7 w rD w n Ga M 5 4i c Q v y c as zi d U C. _ m fn U 7 La U cu m U O U m W 6. 41 —Gj O ra n v O t, v is E o y .o ->, p .E w ❑ p DVI `i ❑ L v CL a> +�•' '� v 'a Q. ,o v ai M OD C N O R'. .� L m OU .� m 6 O V Qa ❑ � O C � s�- 6. u L 7 v Gq U O U C7 M u N ca 0 � 'x v v o�.y�° -C ` O Y 0 0 4•^ O > v Q o �' a C•+. �o Y +. co S.. ti as o 6 H M rrl 0vu r[ �u �-• c. N fC V� p ri> ci CA v Vii 41 V 7 y y j TO Et(uoyE°o� cu si v � . c o. E r cc a a .? y bc r- p f4 G�.i y 6. u iC ❑U0 w v ' p Q. V) 0 -� E fl fl .E .E � ❑u o H N � Y C cri W D rc C E U Y L Y E Ln G.1 •.. U OU Y :a Vn ,E 0 v m E v O t4 O i Vi C C7 U Qi Q7 ra ra a7 E m cnLn U C O C.7fG � V U C QJ SiJ A] �-' C%�7•, cd i. rn i vy as m C O q m � L" -0 IC Q Y 0. p •O E CJ ,CZ v �, 4! �• r rA N V} U ro V C. U L6 ro y o" Ocu y CD rrt D 3 iC 05 = 3 U, ca 0 E�� L y O p a 'B v u` Y Y P 6s a, C — E m bi U a J N !'� 0. a! Ou E� p o d t0a �cJ '� as til W v.0 d .r L, cC 'n '� i N f;1 'C C aV' ra cJ QS L Cj cVn ❑ .a 'B C Or nO d a i > C} L¢ 7 y N '�" v Y C "R ❑ '', V V :n SYC v O rC v C L V] c6 v O .O LG ' C ..0 R'. d.1 C'ti i. O Y. C s 7 V�5 �a�F O cct F= rj U � E E y 4J +- :3 C C 9 O Q aJ i t 'Y �:. '� "d G m O •,, y .1CC^-' .0 ci. O U C C C L •— 7J S" Vi Q Y ctl Y v rq in L v ., a. rj ,— w .y u ❑ L cam: o .'-' o r� U 4 .'� c • v CU as �•' yc Ccra OLrt rz - ¢ .^' u m O u V^. Gvcc Q - uC .u�', -� Q _ m fn U 7 La U cu m U O U m W 6. 41 —Gj O ra n v O t, v is E o y .o ->, p .E w ❑ p DVI `i ❑ L v CL a> +�•' '� v 'a Q. ,o v ai M OD C N O R'. .� L m OU .� m 6 O V Qa ❑ � O C � s�- 6. u L 7 v Gq U O U C7 M u N ca 0 � 'x v v o�.y�° -C ` O Y 0 0 4•^ O > v Q o �' a C•+. �o Y +. co S.. ti as o 6 H M rrl 0vu r[ �u �-• c. N fC V� p ri> ci CA v Vii 41 V 7 y y j TO Et(uoyE°o� cu si v � . c o. E r cc a a .? y bc r- p f4 G�.i y 6. u iC ❑U0 w v ' p Q. V) 0 -� E fl fl .E .E � ❑u o H N � Y C cri W D rc C E U Y L Y E Ln G.1 •.. U OU Y :a Vn ,E 0 v m E v O t4 O i Vi C C7 U Qi Q7 ra ra a7 E m cnLn Q V Lc1 U C O cu y a1 �-' C%�7•, cd i. rn i vy as m C O q m � L" ui C IC Q Y 0. p •O E CJ ,CZ v U C r rA N V} as ro V C. U L6 y o" Ocu y CD rrt D 3 iC C = 3 U, ca 0 E�� L y O p O i a 'B v u` C P 6s a, C — E m ar *' A M W o O. A 7� w U q Q. p 0. 0. a! Ou E� p o d t0a '� as Q V Lc1 F+ N D na R n j enR•r C. I rD � 9 m LA rr C 'b n ..O - n H C n w o o r* �n Ln rr -1 n n ,'0 0 n .-•, C un '6 SSD n N ❑ nl O. gi '0 O rD = W fD r' C Q n n, 0 .0 m rL dG C GM r_ p, e'-, O. 'C r+ m O o O. w N y' W 'C C C rwr- `C Q' C ID -t�, C Q rD C rtn ho 0 rwr G '_C t�G '� r^'o It ^Oi ^ O EA rt c r rD oma x a rD p w° ¢ �° m o w ri cin o' n o o m o rL CD c CD ro o ❑ a p, [3 OEn m x o t] n y °° �' n o w CDCL < o Q a> Ln ID a.w c m cr rD m a' m W C rD *+ r r En r �' n al to p _ rt ' rp rD rD cn O !n . t UU a r➢ 'C C a `•C 0 R• IL) rnr N 6 Q rt R y '�+ W ro ro O r ro m °• - rD aW CD CD � -v F. ro O. rL R m a a R. CT d ro v, Cr m Ko M n m . M w p, a w r0. n W b y a w l r- - - ro rt ro C rD C0. 2rD fD rD ;t A T D"D a f! D a � M ro rD a rr O rD rD d -3 ' C] 0 CDvi �f9 n p �= r* Cr° al m -s CD UC n en m G ❑ ! ro -s - G. rD rL croil CD rD O n '� Q w N CCD -ros `C ¢, 9 G v a' Q n C (D (D d int o f D 'U -1 rt o❑ M rD n y v a O F C a m w rD a CD 'o C _ w D7CD CD CD CL rD, C4 rn mw na m o rL .> w L7 C a TS in -_ a C rL rh CD C ro O i C 7 N n p5 rD IA- M .0 6r1 fi rL C 6 -1 r,D -n Cn i rt a m v p H cr(D D o Cp S] p '.'2 In •� �. O �* m CD y [CDam n C 0 A> rwj ro n ,� n `'C C. rt •^-- P vi 0 O M `.jcr w C r-' Q- C!q as ro C 7= - c;@ a R' C O O a rD C" ." 3 @ rn r�D `C .�- rp OA r�-r m rt ,CD CC CDD fD w E.CCD 0 6' 6 b O R. ro r+00 ti w w w v' =—C Si ti`_ ro rD ro w o L7 w 61 y C. rY CD fD J4 Val�_ N re's r�D R o- ❑ r7 y n w rD M o a ro rT -f -1 N O fnD rD CD 0 n m '� rt rL m Ln rn rn '•r � w � D CD Q n rD A m Ln K W b > p ps ;:r c3 cn C G rt a rD � rt N RrD a e�9 n II7 rD 6 rL w n M aC w C• cr ari m rD CL rtl ro �. a C rD ri y r'* rD 7 '--i C rD m w C M w n °t a Lei w '0 CL Ln w O rA rt a a' rr a• T. ro =3rrDD C 9 C @ CD CD CL 9 a m r6 -^ r6 �T y rD O. .. C � a rD ro ml CD n w ¢ a N C CD rD w 'a (D 7 H+ v Vcr rt CL C � a rai � �• rr rr ro rDfD f° c ss 0. a � � w W n a rD � o m � C a c• CA n ro lu a Y n w C ro i F"D ti a w C W. n d -o m V5 c 3 3 m to V Q d U rj D C C aoi zy^ v 7 ayi 0 ra 0 v V '� i. N '' 41 Y rn 4i R C [�" V j7 cn cn L - .0 y as -C� C tn cn � y1 y .a v v ra Lr R 'v C E C a C4 V 7 V U 47 y" 4J cn G Q. p -05 22 O. L. >C y C D >C O V) u C Q m 3 �, c� wl w .o z � v L U � a O � � cn cn z cn Y > rG v fG 7r1 c cn (D • -Z�m� E a� b E m r O QJ _ _ a .O b is kA U V)i in M O as cC rUC � C E� cn ai E15 [n rl U 4 Qi 10 ¢ m r� w T v m y y cn cn cn too ) U S6 O fl. aa U rt a� •O p, C C 'C C �, R ra � a5 y a a Y w 41 F6 v ro > c 3 ra v -07 3— a a o y a rl E ° �; o +� 0 0 . G rCa 'U; W rrl sy C a) a E- cn u < N CU 'r .a C E a C z C E C yO E N u ro d d �C cu E o o cn Lnn cn u V O V y O L T v v .O 6. cd W 3 v 41 C +-' u v 'LS .9 b rl C ,..r V ^C 'O ,C R V C Co d s a E Maj a w u W5O u b0 ' m C s O <a G Y U L_ a F D U 'D '.� y [� O R W d.7 d � � Y Y m Ln .i U C a b r a Q Y7 is L � y" y Y � E L Y C 4 u m v Ln r SV. U Y rG cn ¢., m M u Y y "in c� O '� Et U O+ y fC C ya i [G 41 V "� Vi y S, O E a_ a E QLl 'Q E }•, 6 m Y R n �+ Q1 E rc C rr a ;; ra a a V, o 6 fl .c u m 3° Q. v .E V3 con .� °' C v 3 E'er a .E .� cn m R u V Gr G1 Nar R n 75 ? T O y 0. x z cn Ln V7 r � C d C v v o n u .O +; •� T� m w o E �� E. v E� a o° o o E 0 75 U � �. u a b U " a cri s .0 o O u Ui er �o C) n N � Q V Q C C aoi zy^ v 7 ayi 0 ra 0 v V '� i. N '' V y rn 4i R C [�" V j7 cn cn L - .0 y as -C� tn L-1 co 3 y .a v v ra Lr R 'v •a X a C4 V 7 V U 47 y" 4J y N vi V N m a a0.ice+ Y Q. p -05 22 O. L. >C y C D >C O V) u C Q m 3 �, c� wl w .o z � v L U � a O � � � C d C v v o n u .O +; •� T� m w o E �� E. v E� a o° o o E 0 75 U � �. u a b U " a cri s .0 o O u Ui er �o C) n N � Q V Q w G � Q a ^[] 0 a� LA CSD O rt C C � � @ n a 0- > •>CD .y o rD aaa ti v w CD O C (T @ ro N a � o � c °r a ti CD a. @ G 0 y rDr torD O S raj H S Cep CD aq d rD pCi ro �-s y n O C ars a y ;Y y w y @ C �0 y w cin CD � rt IDD O T JU Cp ni Ia a� rD CD CCD rCr �-s y CD ti CD C CD 04 N c C w �.9 Q 007 @ ro m cn 7 rD .y `C C7q'w a a w G a y @ o r b m O y G w a rL C S @ LAR y � � 0 w w M w rrb '* � Lq C n q- LA n@i O �ro o n. pCq rw-r rt° w (DD a "s G. w n D O C rCi @ O n pl• C r? rA Ci '6 CD @ ❑. � C rD 0 ft rt y K� c o w ro O O UQ C W n M a T C @ '••I y ro a a .d n q m -1 -• * o a w d CD@ CD O n o @O faD w S y 0 @ @ ry n p n o C W n m 0 C rt C @ p 0 y O C 7 C C W ,�.,, R n y' d C A3 a rl rn n w G m OrD SD ro n v w K O. S D w C CD 'G `s 4 by rD C C C y 0 �' rL ro a zCD 0 fSD M N y .w.i w 0 o$11 IA a @ v rD @ a CD m 'c w G � a VLAtJ O ° T n yCD n rD C R, N @ v CL S CCD CCD it 7 @ -a V m -s n w � w CD C ao w C a0 C ° ro s ro = Q @ rar a Ln Cb C 7 w O CCD ° " w a y G 4 N 03 — (y fi �••F O C" m a O rD 7rS 17 CD , CD a @ D y rD yPo W D y w R aq ca = eDCsu a S p I--tirD n �• w O 7 ro ro R O S ID ° O ro G C CD w 9 a• R - _n -s a' On n in w C �' .Y • W O G" O. H y G C cn 7 N w� .,j bD CDD rS6 '-ry �'. D [SD N CD � w C C G 0 Lqi C � Q- O .q � W .wj @ SCD CD 7 SD rD CCC G p, C pS C C6 rr C w O .,j R CD 0• C• r~D O rD y. C L ty S R � .T7' �-' o CCD 0 � �- O � @ fCD rD O 1 � w N � v '� V w Z .y ' �n r•r @ SD a 0 w .y O ry-r T 0. r c @ NCD G S@ rG+ d y w CDw @ r+ _ a -1 rte• W y CCD n y w R n y q . p -SDs R° y w v O S rD rL @ CD @ CCCL ro CD O _rt G a O O C 'C C O w '•r fls w Sn W CCp aj w N r Oa' ''* N o CF O mID r -S �• @ r m �' .•s 0 7 m G rr rD @ C a' �' a •A vl p7 , S 3' Q- p C y, = y 0 r �° O w @ rt m @ p, G. @ CRDN v w K O. S D w C CD 'G `s 4 by rD C C C y 0 �' rL ro a zCD 0 fSD M N y .w.i w 0 o$11 IA a @ v rD @ a CD m 'c w G � a VLAtJ O ° T n yCD n rD C w ro @ v CL a1n @Ra,m a wy a 7 @ -a V a. o I" � w CD C a ro s ro = Q @ rar a Q. C p @ w O CCD ° " w a y R CY Ll@ N 03 — (y fi �••F O C" m a 7rS O , CD a C @ D y rD yPo W D y w R aq ca = a S p I--tirD n �• 'tiID O 7 ro ro R O S ID ° O ro G C w@ 9 rt SD G@ R - _n -s a' On w -y w CD Cn ryr O W C �' .Y • W CDsuML SSC CD O. H y O 'O G �C a '� �* 'G O. L '-ry �'. D � rt a @ n '-n Q- w C .wj @ SCD CD 7 SD rD CCC G p, C pS C C6 rr C w O .,j R CD 0• C• r~D O rD y. C L ty S R � .T7' �-' a. a v r, ,..' �' Q1 4 --" r w m rD O 1 '� G O rt 'R"" in �' �' @ .y O ry-r _� p CL CSD 6roi •@i ° 'C nIU ai `� C C y @ r+ C w rD rte• W y CCD n S a R rb rL ro CD O f~yp C a O R Sn W yf*�, aj w N r Oa' ''* N o CF O r -S �• @ r m �' .•s 0 7 m G rr rD @ C a' �' a •A vl p7 , p C y, = y 0 r �° O @ Ln G t a rt m @ p, G. @ CRDN @ ^C w y rp rD w G a C q �"' O Co y rD Cd CCD w Oyi a 'y Cep C O N R 't rD rr C 7 -S c p A. N v w K O. S D w C CD 'G `s 4 by rD C C C y 0 �' rL ro a zCD 0 fSD M N y .w.i w 0 o$11 IA a @ v rD @ a CD m 'c 5 a > w o pr ro a rt {w�0 rD t`9 rwr R O rD O �• W r+ O r'YD CSD rD w Q rD >= C W R w @ a @ .4P fl. � d 7 a C a � o S new o b y5:: r* CDepm Ln C C C ye� y y S ,C p C1. E r-' UJ rt rt O @ O SSD rp crq o mw h o o CD 11 rD N w @ G w m 7 rn ACD SCD w ¢ O a.p O a D n ti ~~, tlQ w � � Q ° T n yCD n rD C w a v CL rD 7 w V I" � w CD C D S rar a CCD r* @ 07 y w N y Ll@ N 03 — v m a 5 a > w o pr ro a rt {w�0 rD t`9 rwr R O rD O �• W r+ O r'YD CSD rD w Q rD >= C W R w @ a @ .4P fl. � d 7 a C a � o S new o b y5:: r* CDepm Ln C C C ye� y y S ,C p C1. E r-' UJ rt rt O @ O SSD rp crq o mw h o o CD 11 rD N w @ G w m 7 rn ACD SCD w ¢ O a.p O a D n ti ~~, tlQ 10 S'O CD O C- (DCD @ a C 0 G rD L c @ Cr �S Di m @ '17 Un � a Cil R @ fD CT' Al -s w rro a s: w •n C9 9 r, w C CD n �MrD aCD ° _S yCD rD C a w 7 w V � w CD C w q rr N 03 — v m a 7rS , CD a y- @ D T !y - R a rt O G C rt rTD a ~- rD tz w CD 0Cp a ro CL a. ¢7 C w a o a L rD O C w a' Da 7 R R r" a. C @ a y O a @ r+ 10 S'O CD O C- (DCD @ a C 0 G rD L c @ Cr �S Di m @ '17 Un � a Cil R @ fD CT' Al -s w rro a s: w •n C9 9 r, w C CD n ro E E N v CL u W w Q Q V y r N m r Q Q n v aJ VF rc 41 A, v C6 rc ¢ �d ra y Y -b GJ 6J O + V)'J V} ) V7 V] t- [ y c 12 v a tJ 71- = M r s- Q. o a p o ❑ �� 1 N L c a C N 1 j 4J — b rya v Cy w Q Y Q V' C aJ , C— (��-!! 4J s" y 9 N y L '6 _ a L 4J cn y j _ _ _ .�+ p rC d C Q' C cJ .� L v � � d Q Y C v Ln O C C cn rl V'] C% i ren O (U � S-+ � L � IV ill OD '� .•� U i. Q aC.1 L L O y _tn M GJ d SC w .0 O ." O N QJ C C y y N v V1 —U-. Y CG O Y C > > •� +' a y R 6-7G `u s� m aJ ao cn y Q v a,' y L 'G '� i� 'CS yJ ❑ i6 y w O -6 Q GO C z L Q' cc ruG s0. C C v Y j Y Y y y CJ cn cn o. r[e m N (6 v �a C 9 m daj ytl 0 Mi Gj a Erl!fc4 f1I Crj V7 Cfi "tea S-. CU 'O u O °J Q N w a 0 � � [L Y N vy N La ami ani o QJ QJ L F+ VI [� In r'C 0 G Qj ; CD C4) Y -v rt rrl C �, ❑ Z O v ; Q L �::D 0 m D a 0 Ul i W C v �m W b m Q Inrz 2 m -Q � bD G.s cM �,� u w c, O C Q 'd Q Y ai Y C? N a 'd O C � h y D ' q n0 rr @ ❑ n0 m o "' m n 'd El m(A D C 7 m� G•' k '0 @ w M@ ',�.' su CL rt (D @ r6 S m 'J' CL N C @ N N 1 G CD n D@ (A , O r .y r4 rD C DS P Lm cn rD Ds n vwi C !9 n C@ rD r-' rt rD V$ L n (D In r_ CD w W rD w^ z o o o o m Q4 7 -ms C. 5. Dia o ^., f�D m � W � a < ':'• � 1 n ro n -`n D1 rD rT 47 @ a F) y R LA Q C 'vi "i y D 0 n D n D G "S M C r•' P. QC wGn+C c❑ c 'C C' W a '� G' rD,• rDn Awa rCD m =�' 67 Q• -S � Po Ort O {�DrD �' w DS ry' a a0i t9 a .nR. En O= D n O m " '. w y y CL OQG G y "" tD •� Kcr E olq y O rCCD -r ❑ n- o, rn ro CL CL G @ 7 CL cn 7 C' 15. -roi C3 � rD s ❑ � rt Q- CL = A -0 w " a in 0. 7 D a- n ro rD D" m n til D 7 z N n O -1 rrtr F. O. n� O O v� v C. � n' l Q. fl- r@D = -. rn D y ? ro w n Co ro? L to ❑ 0 t9 p �* W CD Q' d N m rt O• oa L1 O m 7 "J r"+ � rD rw-, .nrt. .Gy O C �' @ Al .0 N '0 :-r @ p m W y m �n-r rD a' .m7 Q Ln rt ❑ rn �.•�[ O CL ro y Q r-, n Q, ..e Al D' C cr ^ C (�D .D O' _DmC 'Q Q- p� O -mi A a�r •p rD-r Q S C] p. ..� •� w w p n .•n w CS W A7 (D ro cD O. 0 D ^� N y rD n 'r7 n R fl. rT Q. 07 L7 ,Gy O w '� p v' n R n O C C D Z O G• �' 7q O w fm ro '� R C CDD Q n @ �, `�..D "j rp R G. �. ❑ O CLC O rD D CD D fn O '•[ > wcr Y C n O rr Q G ��; n n @ uo C• fl, ❑" y �• o m � ro cn h rt w -n n D D ti N 1 to n D O -n rr C CL 2 C p0 rr > ❑ '0 G O• "O O C ro O ...,, n 0❑ �+ S CD w Q n o s �- �. G e•v O• ¢. 'i CL rD frtD su CL rt (D @ r6 S m 7 � y N n O w D ro [➢ Vi Ln n n @ n CDCDlu .y r4 rD C DS P Lm cn rD Ds n vwi C !9 n C@ rD r-' rt rD V$ r* C - y Lny (9 DJ z CL cAD ^., f�D m � W � O � < ':'• � 1 n ro n -`n D1 rD C: ro O@ m 0 O p .y ro ❑ uCi R rnLA O Q. n rD °° N C• a°, �'• A. rw�r m a '� G' rD,• rDn Awa rCD m CCD �7 En .D 7 (Dri w DS II� -tC'n v En O= D n O rD y y CL OQG G rt "" tD C CL vroi m D rD o, rn ro CL CL ro rD CL CL Q CL rQr 15. R ' ❑ rD s �❑.� n rt cn 4.� m n❑ Cr M N n ro° eM c m a a ° m o �. ~ @ ro N N 0 V, I'DO ::r R y (D Q C@ y CD < Ln n n @ n CDCDlu .y r4 rD C DS P Lm cn rD Ds n vwi C !9 n C@ rD r-' rt rD V$ r* C - y Lny `� DJ z Q (D m a � � rD rp @ ~ (D a CD < n CDCDlu • rD G C1. `� m z rD rD @ L y p.. w •CMD m n rD R CT O rD ci@ � CL 7 (Dri w DS rt r5 D n O rD ^7 D rt rt rD ,..r 15. VR, rt pJ O m a � � rD rp ~ (D a CD < n CDCDlu w rD CD rnr •CMD N p w c � CL 7 w DS D n `t ^7 ww w mm "a r�D o C� @ C c rD �. 0 = [n @ Q Q w rt @ C Q Z QJ y n w w m "0 b CDD O a � @ Q rD �. 6- lu CA c ro y 7 m Ul C � 6�3 � (DD n w rD b 'o Di Q (D CDw n A y �s 7 w R C� rD W n m a> •Y G L I .y c� C s, y d 0. z a. ❑ � � C U N v w �O ? v G O ro G ^ :n E � sC. L v .� .D ❑ i d P pr!! m aj O y fn cc N � " w o ❑ " Q1 y cd is i•• El y y in c Y z a. ❑ � � C N v N v w �O ? v G O ro G r: E � sC. L v .� .D ❑ j_s � C d P pr!! m aj O y fn cc N � " w o ❑ " Q1 El m Qi U ? '•� Q C atu _V ro ro L G G l.1 LVj z a. ❑ � � C N v N v w �O ? v G O ro G r: E � sC. L v .� .D ❑ j_s � C d P pr!! m aj O y fn cc N � " w o ❑ " Q1 z a. a Q W 'Jl G CR It a C Q ❑ � � C � Q O ❑ y v G O ro u a> � •� civ E � sC. .� .D ❑ N fC fti3 P pr!! m a Q W 'Jl G CR It a C Q G v V y C u aj Lam, C 'C V G vl f6 u }' ❑ at ..N-, ns O G -O ..�'. � Iw.., v 'G j..J a n. a ❑ y �a G fu `C v u u G O ice+ >, r� C v ❑ u A O sy.. 'C5 a o U 'O T.C., Vi qGj b CU v C m C4 yn cy❑ p L a C o Ln H -n = 3 r- a °y' .0 a o Q M I Y Q In w C L 4.1 Cl L G O b -Q O ro u a> � •� civ � 'v, G p In Y v P pr!! m gi C ❑ U Q G v V y C u aj Lam, C 'C V G vl f6 u }' ❑ at ..N-, ns O G -O ..�'. � Iw.., v 'G j..J a n. a ❑ y �a G fu `C v u u G O ice+ >, r� C v ❑ u A O sy.. 'C5 a o U 'O T.C., Vi qGj b CU v C m C4 yn cy❑ p L a C o Ln H -n = 3 r- a °y' .0 a o Q M I N N N n-0 C �_ .1. O Uq II rt 0 S w @ O, Ln. .a �. raD C @ -@s @ OS 1+a N S q�q n Cl. N a m 1w1 w CD ° CL3 CD n rD fDm @ o w 0 Eli w -(D 57 D° n° v O o a• pO QQ M r" Ort CD L7 I -i o w � Q n LA abSn.w-0 CL r* n. a w' O W O O 0• M - r-' Lei t➢ @ rr Oo n r'� a y @ w a@ O O w r -c O OC N w C a' O CD @< rD n CS. -fin o s rLcrQv,' @ 0 a' c r- C� R rQD n O0 r+ S N n rD ro L3 rl)rt M m b m w a 7 w a •o P. n t:j c; a CD o w o@ o m a I'D ° @ a -� 'y ro y �ro O S o w a fl. rt -s ^°a Q +O Yrc p 'r3 b 0 d tSn w 'Q O rL rD m' IZD O �' CCD ❑ CN -1 << R CA � @ � ra rL 0 CL 0 aq O @ tA @ M rwn >@C x O W a m '° b w va p, 0 11 to @ O -". CL C ?C n e -r a0. < c LA CD CL = rwr O "ti rt e•r @ rn o :s n, ID 0 rD C1 0 Ci C6 n b G V 7 w 7 @ % rL eD Ln tn ft [n -F "yw w Ln rt a y @ in. cm a w r n QQ a' 11 cn n rL ti n -1 . 'r� a 'C v Cr a. w R rD n V > n C3 N O w r=i C1' pq p' y rD ca ,%� Li t. ^%i f�D N n' m G C G c1 14. @ C '@y _r rD R• r<D 7 3 c C, @ aas .o n o a a "a w o' ° o' o A a' n. n o° tnD C1 rD w '° za w " a o, a m c d o a ami M rQ-r a' .a u7 �' C5. w -1 rt @ 'o ro M - En @ .-r C1 W. ° '[3 d• '1 '•r a ro rr �' {D rD O '0 � � O �, ID @ y @ rL as can @ n ° SU < a < �n o n a . � p- m �° s`o 'C os R. °7 �. m ry @. C_J n O Q caro ,~, o y @ O v@i a_ r`�} @ m m n r? co @ O rD p ': �, C rr N n CS 3 Orrt@ m N W Cn �. ci r- rt a C V@ Ws a° rQr rt¢ o a o @oro N Q° a S o ro a w o r* a w n rn ro o rt op n as "* ?. ^u CDD .w7ID �, o ^. a@ N �;L I -Q, m a w Q 7 `� roD S a o o n `4 o H O `•C @.i ryr a V4 ro OR p; �' d -1 ,0 10 7 n Q- vrti G• tOn p, sn @ @ O _ w rt R, a U3 [d°D cin R pOj R �' m coi _n in C rr N n 0 CD o �' CL @ O o ° �•, P. @ a a , o H m NCL �. c° fl 9 w O Q O ri [D C]. CD@x=y�IDrDMm rL :5 .y a ° (D CJ M -- rD n y m < x rD w n� @ @ rt � M C O CD 0 C eDD a En CD 1�.s - 0- O O rt w rD LJ ro W cGn O' @ y a 'b v K @ a a o� oma'I 3r<o��*r+<M , M c o y n o m o w@ o :z < CD 7r @ rL c W y '� y O Q Q- '� @ a y c< @ @ n R rt y y w �_ m� w y O -@s Dpi py a S rt crQ CC' H CDo rD 'o (IQ _ CL rDc Ar m ,n 'S' • a M ov n 'Ly n O rD r C1 @ rr rD @ @ ra pq o N b7 CL rD Vi �' Lna .ten?' @ .w E: G S n @ O= n= w w n w a ro--' o O ^•1 .f. " O MN @@ e=f v, O S rh 7 w O '1 rain rt ,� W � � v f9 � � ° � w `1 � ,� O rw+ ^I w wrA o o T•u m o w a a a ? m R w roY @ = -5 @ .T.. w 'd �r G'. CD @ rt• . M @ rr Oh o `C 6q .�@' '7 `C @ �. O w 'A O @O u@i y rD '•CCD r<o @ 'C .@j n ID0 CD 0 CD 1D S D O n w �' rt CS. rt a 'C rD `G rCD •e O o rA rL m oaa ?r a w '°a o R n R o n w 7r CD CD @ Z �A @ a 'o ; o CLF 'c 7 > v @ rD rL cn t<D G CD r@r w C<D O [n .3 f -+CL a -O rL °,N y m w a @ � = d O O G F C]. O O C a. rt w p ..r o '•r a m��. ^a rD a a w w w o a. 4z; po n n n y kmo0 00.E orYY�oCL @°g-�°m a 5 w 0 y 'n o .d CD m o'1 ro a a rD w fD n M W fl. M Q c to ^w•l H' Q1 w fD rD rD ro O C rt O rt 'b < r+n Q 7@x -D1 @W 'Y OQ p ;z aCD C4m E. ❑ O h1 Q w rt 0 0 @ w O O aQ y 7 e -i C:L w Q o x rn Q rrtD G rr '•' 4 :O .0 D. rCD CDD O rs S y n < O O @* V C N• w G, p, 7 O@ M N '/� O m w w @ CS. ;: r- W C n G@ Crq w rD „ a 4h C L6 w w ^ws a s CS. 4 =i O m V G nNi Ln r@'."p O y w0 OF4 a n rD O w 0 'S n rD a O R' @ roY O R. � @ r0•r w m N 0. 6' m@ a. n N '--3 PT y 1111 ro-- Q rD Q • @ o rD , - � n Q •� a oS rA n O, .9 IV -a w n CD 11 a N a r`D w rt el @ W - � n Q •� a oS rA n O, .9 IV -a w n CD 11 a N a r`D w rt el @ W E E Iz r-[ d Q. m U m v a L L U Q N m G L v Q V � a ci� mr,4 m U iC N N a G � ¢ J > > � r+ U V) v Q Q L L f6 D ¢ Q v} Ln Q > Q v c ar N ti In N n 00 [G r tn ' UD CU ` L N raN V7 ? a a° a [!1 (h4 U L. Vl S�6 cu 3 "D �, s•. w a) rC QJ� � i Y YD. 4J L d A C v C1 i r�'a cyC = 6. � y v U v7 vl i b.0 C U � rG y 4"' �• V � � a5 rC a, m al G , ° C as C a] C 4cn c y 4 L p 'N }' p o ° .Q G? C w. p g q fi C N D sD L U .� LJ Q •� 0 iy O a=� M V q Q b 4i ry U ? N N A r+ m C o. m m a O 0'Q rD rob a „i, b N a p O- C n O ° W Vi W r- rD my • rT r? Vl rD r�3' a R m 0 rt C 0 (D y y 0 0 0 m w • Q m W O' ((D ° O SD C to < G. O � a d '•r O m Q 0 rD =- a ro m a was y o c -9e w 'O CCD C rt m= a M rr m 0 ID fD 'I O N m � O m- m y O. o 'O 7 CL d a C 47 Ai r fCL < m ^ w w= 'a0 ro ID C n Ih O rL O- ^moi = CDD 6N a Zn su Gm 7= n H R. a- Oi v O 'K m n R ((DD = M X O. 0 0 y O fu'as rD n i C K �' M w(D 0 p 7 0Zq rt m n 6 0 a:�ti in_ 0 rt O •rD O A�7 O C C N O m n �' rD a ,� [OD ((D I Md O � �' Ddi 'a C C 5mi LA C ¢' rD7 M y 0 `C7 k.CD O Q- d rt rD CD o 7 ^y rt - Q O• rr m tpii rr m y`. p rL C C O O W (D m 'C o0i m w d =' O ^�+ k p 7 O. C m O n G rmr n.C m n~i rn m {R. O a m„ C m as wts 7" 0 m 'S wo a °° O i R a roCrQ [ O CD m 3 w w ° O m od m � N C CD (D r-' O ° r-' Da a Wn• n. ..d ry rt p 'a m _� y. ^� rDb 6 y m o m �_ rD V .� ¢. M CCD rFrD r rD ° ^ a m ¢' �. "'1 m VmY .b n 6 < �" ('y C m p 9: lu y CDD m A: ••Y c^D r2 - m O D!_ CD 'b ! n � O R. O m t O m CD -h r0-' 9a 1 - m ro° O m m 0 .y tD... y rD w m° '6 F m W O O y r A7 p r m m m a m V,n w M o a� wii °ny R. crD rt ((D Qq (D Zd Cil m w y C .(p,, p= m (D Q.� ° ."° - R• o 0 ter, m s°'* O m c ro m = m - rD =- a ro m a was y o c -9e w 'O CCD C rt m= a M rr m 0 G r+ w v rD w o 'O yr rr a '.'� 47 Ai r fCL < m ^ w = r C n uiC an rr o rt rD 6N a Zn su d ci CD rD 77 rte-' rD y O fu'as rD n b Mm' 0 p R m m in_ 0 rt O •rD ~ A�7 ((D < O,•CO dCD Qj ((D I f1 LA f4 M mLAm rD CD m m y m C cn m. v z -f -. a I a � m p O w rrta � rt 0 w M rD as rr W tCD ^mm 0•. `rD pJ ro � m w n r da OC pq rr ]. fD OQ (p p a o n C m a rD rD V, n. m a =_ O. d rr O' m Q m ^s n � a o 10 `^° 'r o p- m o a w R '+ v vrtrOr M N rOv 'ms f�D r0' y O rD O ^ .I O 7 rD " m O Q. n O m 0' w rm pq w 0. 9 cr a p ° ro crrL Ln ^y nmi o O Z -•n O,. m C M QA n f7. On 0 �' O �• O p C rA nCD `d Al m n O O `D 'a b v 7 im a M O W n n0 C m (D C, rD y N r PL w n O a r `C C Z C o uiC a m 6N a Zn su 7 C rte-' rD Z in_ 0 rt O •rD ~ A�7 ((D < S Qj ((D I f1 LA f4 d mLAm m C O O m 0 v � ID rt rmr n.C m n~i rn m p m L 0 m 'S . :3 i R Q [ O w 3 W w ° O m rD � N C a (D r-' O ° r-' Da rD Wn• n. ..d ry rt p ci w ^n ° C p' rD O CD m O D!_ " ! C' n. W o d `d Al m n O O `D 'a b v 7 im a M O W n n0 C m (D C, rD y N r PL w n O a r `C Ln a n o a w fD n� A, C O O rte-' rD Z in_ 0 rt O ~ O rip mLAm m C O O m G. p D O a' rmr n.C " n~i rn rt n O 7 L C r� D m p m w ° O •.' rD .'3 (D ° s Lq m m w ° `d Al m n O O `D 'a b v 7 im a M O W n n0 C m (D rD y N O r0-' TO C. C n O n_ `C Ln � n fD n� A, C O O rte-' rD Z `d Al m n O O `D 'a b v 7 im a M O W n a Q a 7-. W a P— M M a Y cC L a N a L a d U 0. ❑.. O.. a H O O r» Q V r ti L L a a ° F. V C; a a° aa° a a L-� -C , a ' N 7-1 Q� 6 viC u a D c� a �"' p -O a j c w — .. L C m y + ti w + C i in fn ,u a cn Q N i N a L �y O Q C O D a > v a C + ° a u C a 'G O v d a o O b ca EaE°;� aj a > - L .0 C) a > a a 7 m + C 7 +3 D a D O a O m V V � Z " V) � ca :n � Ga "T3 C - a L4 U i En aj ci w U 41 p VI V U � a O � � ° � a a � GCG.� [�''C a y w ct W ry Q p j O u C •C� a Ld a v a 'B O4k X '9 ° CLO can .� y -o .0 a � D a ° r o � c a� C a-0-aCl. ani a E ° oD o cv U O .4 ate.. a rl E b a 3 u �' p Ln ?0 a a sa. a G a C a CJ ai v 'C ? U .G a p s�C a O OU i a, a ts sem.. •C: 0 tocuw "d 0. 'd i 'O p p d E 0-. Ei >C c`oi � a a L. L" C y" y" C3 a 'D Cl) O S.. E vl 'tS Q Vl .7 fE L iJ CJ m TS U m > a uz D a a C O z D '� y ¢ a C ami Y Fa y L C p C D Ln v pQ. Ln W O C LDJ vCi O Q. a"i CL u Z i: M Ln Ln Al a rTj a C ,a.. +� itcoa ,moi U rt 0. N0 C a y4Q„ 'U la vi 0 .0 ++ 4 � ❑. 0.° a C 6�t 4 -JC a u' m i v N a s as i co L O C .OtA ryG '� ° p G•'c'' " C -0 E 'cj +°^+ m w ray w '6 y ai zC. Gd F. c y k C D '� v a Sa-� +' ,C. +C-' in C i, D a c L C.l "� N �f'. a a a c D v is E EE w s. a a cs an d E + a a ° D 2 Q 3 u cc m m a C O � V Q" Q E a a ry c m a d E T S .. O 7 u EQ uw E � � a a a � c c Ln ._ N N !P N C ;O ro o Cr c o R c rD n c w> v, n ss a 'c rr -� n r. w to n n r0 O C ro ro m CD rD ro ro ro rnCL �R_ (DO O" C C O M LnI ro 6 VI W rt Fj CL l:7. .w.y ��' rw'r '[S D Ds 'O G U'7q r7 -r �' j w ry [DC `O CD G C "s w n ro C G 'i O rD C Ar C7. CD n w O ro rwr n 0 CLy cu c o Ln rD tt rt O L7. = e••' W �` C C n rt 7 C O Ami m n rt 0 "n•I H "1 C rGr ro m wi T n 77 rr .Y rD' C ^. p n `C w O fl O R C r C "I rn rD rD O '-3 y rw-' F C W v 'G' EL UQ C „�� CwrTD C I w C b �• Vi rwr (D ^.'�"7 (DD �, A. rM vi ro rD Q• -%s rroD w A- O C =• '� m A O n 'C a• O ti c- -•I p n w T n G ro 0 a w o a a a� w ci o r' m CD rD m¢ 7@ co R D w C N a L v R 4 � -1 v rD = _ o ID A; cm C rt 0 0 rt cD from rC•r � co t" 't O rD un r%r 0 '~ m O rD rD y¢j G rwr r•r rC•' (D L9 0y �;bfl-C 2. "��' "�' w Cp, CD C1 0 4 m a a. G UG • v, rr w CLaH o 1 av ro L C rt rL o y G. O O r V C rD Ul sa. ¢ o n n. rA w rD ' a y L-nrL .I H O rD C O Z rL G n p c ro r' `C v'�i � T G r0r w "Gi C -D O r�D a' o y O. CD CD c a o a a ;O ro o Cr c o R c rD n c w> v, n ss a 'c rr -� n r. w to n n r0 O C ro ro m CD rD ro ro ro rnCL �R_ (DO O" C C O M LnI ro 6 VI W rt Fj CL l:7. .w.y ��' rw'r '[S D Ds 'O G U'7q r7 -r �' j w ry [DC `O CD G C "s w n ro C G 'i O rD C Ar C7. CD n w O ro rwr n 0 CLy cu c o Ln rD tt rt O L7. = e••' W �` C C n rt 7 C O Ami m n rt 0 "n•I H "1 C rGr ro m wi T n 77 rr .Y rD' C ^. p n `C w O fl O R C r C "I rn rD rD O '-3 y rw-' F C W v 'G' EL UQ C „�� CwrTD C I w C b �• Vi rwr (D ^.'�"7 (DD �, A. rM vi ro rD Q• -%s rroD w A- O C =• '� m A O n 'C a• O ti c- -•I p n w T n G ro 0 a w o a a a� w ci o r' m CD rD m¢ 7@ co R D w C N a L v R 4 � -1 v rD = _ o ID A; cm C rt 0 0 rt cD from rC•r � co t" 't O rD un r%r 0 '~ m O rD rD y¢j G rwr r•r rC•' (D L9 0y �;bfl-C 2. "��' "�' w Cp, CD C1 0 4 m a a. G UG • v, rr w CLaH o 1 av ro L C rt rL o y G. O O r V C rD Ul sa. ¢ o n n. rA w rD ' a y L-nrL .I H rt rD rD O rD O Z rL G n p c ro r' `C v'�i � T G r0r w "Gi C -D O r�D a' o — o CD CD c a o a a 21 o a• rD C � C C" as -= N -Q w r•h rD w —j w .P. c = ° x a o 5 F a= m ro n V .0 C, Q" C aq C p N a Q rr R. .w.,, p C rD m O G C 0 - a' .p„ ar:LC rt C rD G (D f�P o vTi rror = r* 0 v O. rD Da O rn C [D CD C b Cr DI ^ rD w -3 C C rD -O Q k p- 7' rr 'ws N ' i W rL Ln ro Ln M n �. O W R, w OD a' o' -� rt •a F ro o rL 7 ro CD -P, o� 4p a C G CD R as O * ° w cr c ro °' o ro Ln C n m ro rD O N p' (D In w ID' Nn c - rD M C CD n 6i 0 y y (D (D w r* `C G1, ro n n R M rD n C �. In O CL 7 o eb a O a• rD r* m �, b(n O p t c -_ CD Gm T ( CD ro rt M n CD o vw nI o � c rL G C C C Ln N V •• w G rD r' `C v'�i � T rt � 0N (0 N o N • a rt c �. 00 w n a a 0 ro o c C C" m r*w o a ".. a Vft `I CL rD M N G M ro C 0 rL PQ rQ W O CD a n M CC G FL _ � r*N C n R CCDCD7 _ a' rL CD O C h T w m ° to ro � ro C CD n 6i 0 y y (D (D w r* `C G1, ro n n R M rD n C �. In O CL 7 o eb a O a• rD r* m �, b(n O p t c -_ CD Gm T ( CD ro oCD cron w w° m°L'�° rronr y ryCq CO G ID ty rr C rh 'O rD 3 C r�rte ry CCD .3' L7. C n ro rr - a tnn o ami err A 7 O ro n A 0 [j n c O R T V) w ro w IA rD "t 7 w CD ro m rt M n CD o vw nI o � c fl- m CL `D m � `C v'�i � T rw•r• � a (n CD CD oCD cron w w° m°L'�° rronr y ryCq CO G ID ty rr C rh 'O rD 3 C r�rte ry CCD .3' L7. C n ro rr - a tnn o ami err A 7 O ro n A 0 [j n c O R T V) w ro w IA rD "t 7 w CD ro m "o R C ro n. O' 10 10 w a C rD a c m i a w n t C (D a O 7 n 3 m 3 3 o (D CD ro n a a c C C" n ❑ ".. a Vft Ms Cl. CD a n n C � CCDCD7 CL "o R C ro n. O' 10 10 w a C rD a c m i a w n t C (D a O 7 n 3 m 3 3 a m a 9 C L i Q N a ro G L v Y d U C. U ro a F-' a LnC G a O a CL a 47 Y t � Q� Q y c � y a a rl y 0.1 .❑ S6 (J] s~ b LnLn Q G ❑ a aj Q) d d G v 75a d i to a N .0 G E- +° U P d H l] U tan CL d a C � L• '� a= ia., •y O 42 rl) C_ '� a a Y u 4 O' ca 3 a c ° C u C y O cc 7, 0 y ca d U L a 4 47 Y t � Q� Q a c Y La. a a rl W a .❑ S6 (J] wp b LnLn Q G ❑ a aj Q) d d G v 75a d i to M G N .0 G E- +° U P d y t C a O d � c Y La. a a rl W a .❑ S6 (J] G�w tpa w° 3 •E 0 � v Q) d d G v 75a d i to M G N .0 G �' 7 C U H l] U tan CL d w vi 3 a ❑ t6 � yam-, � bbD ❑ Off. � N �• N U H•o-C � d t a O a c Y La. a a rl z rtl � G�w tpa w° 3 •E 0 � v S], ro 4 � G v 75a d i to qO U �' 7 C U Qi ai a C � L• '� w vi 3 a ❑ t6 � yam-, � bbD ❑ Off. � N �• N U H•o-C � d t rG c $ La. a a rl z rtl � G�w tpa x Cl. °} Q Q 'ten o w 4 � C + . l G �c qO U �' 7 C U Qi ai a C � L• '� a= ia., •y O 42 rl) C_ '� a � N � o di ro � � Y � o w ❑ � W>, ca 3 a 3 o .X 'X v u C y O cc 7, a Wv 'C a w tuv cu> v ?� -0 O a 4 v7 Ln 'p O Off. cu a Fu .O E.., r,O ° y CU * a 'd � a c•a o C y E- �. ¢ WC° m O C/i 3 L En 2r m o a -p O G m Y O 3 Fr ro a N w 7 O a N m Ow B MLn CU O T CS v tYiz O v O p a cYa O Ly C y t�4 to w a G� a LJ C ?✓ Ln .� o w a E nom n ro a o a � + 0 4 y Y G p a v v y C �, C U >1 o G C❑ Q ,� G E y C G ro u d, c w cc a L Q cu Uu `7 C cz h GG OO a cn O a 0 O CL v C E v, 6. 0. u ryC N a� 'Q A. CA CC. jO OU 3 u •.� Y Ste. f0 K s; "' m A. Q C Cco C/7 Y t'II L i Y v ti o L `e "' v o L ¢ O > `J u o c� arY,} p' E O a U m •Lr C y m L -y U •tL QJ y U r.. • o '� aaj Ja-i C V Y .Y a3i CU G z y bad y.., 7 c. V3 .�j y N G + K U C a O •U Y a a U tx ct 0 'b GD Y O L b d H O ❑ '� O t, C ro C c... .0 PL U .�" G (6 •� �.'' q 3 CL -C b>� a o E- b .Ln d o❑ o UC Y O _ t6 ri Y G ro G C 'B CO O rz,- U 0O Y C oc�roy�� ;3�L.Y� 7 3 v v > 4 L o 6. M y tti 00 ea a M a a O Y c° Q V, a ro L a ��,O o = c.... +'Ql� z u rr y G QJ C a '> O �; O C [C a G ] T u n L y�o�°� � r b3 3 c so.yyy� v y a .� +� _ y W 73 p a 0 C7 P. dr: O U�2 bb t6 a U) O .0 a 4-1 L• D w vi 3 a ❑ t6 � yam-, � bbD ❑ Off. � N �• N U H•o-C � d f Y v cu a �, y❑ o Ln x o o im a U a O O u z ro fn u a k y a d a G u m t6 .A y C D 0 O a �� C L" u AGO N -C a ro C .0C O. p ''' to C C b o o ai L. 7 O C C E cn to o. u L Er H j 0 .E 4 G >% C Ln C �O u cu.� •a p a N ro N - U p vt O MG a Q y ¢ tC Q bUJC C O crO6 ^a QO C VI L C Q 7� G� C3., .r.:' O Q t rG c $ La. a a rl z rtl � G�w tpa x Cl. °} Q Q 'ten o w 4 � C + . l G �c qO U �' 7 C U Qi ai a C � L• '� a= ia., •y O 42 rl) C_ '� a � N � o di ro � � Y � o w ❑ � W>, ca 3 a 3 o f Y v cu a �, y❑ o Ln x o o im a U a O O u z ro fn u a k y a d a G u m t6 .A y C D 0 O a �� C L" u AGO N -C a ro C .0C O. p ''' to C C b o o ai L. 7 O C C E cn to o. u L Er H j 0 .E 4 G >% C Ln C �O u cu.� •a p a N ro N - U p vt O MG a Q y ¢ tC Q bUJC C O crO6 ^a QO C VI L C Q 7� G� C3., .r.:' O Q Qu n N cj cu ac) °"° x Cl. °} Q Q 'ten o w C + . l G �c qO Q" a UG.t E °° �' "O a_ G a= G v' 3 Q a>a Q 0v w '� ya, .X 'X v u C y O cc 7, a Wv 'C a w tuv cu> v ?� -0 O a 4 v7 'p O Off. cu a Fu .O E.., r,O ° y CU a 'd sI C Q C y E- �. ¢ WC° m O C/i 3 L En 2r m o a -p O G m Y O 3 Fr ro a N w 7 a N m Ow B MLn CU O T CS v tYiz O C O p a cYa O Ly C y t�4 to w a G� a +a+ C ?✓ Ln .� a E nom y ro `° C 0 4 y Y G p a v v Y C �, C U >1 o G C❑ Q ,� G a E y C G ro u d, c w .Q a C cz Caa a OO a cn O a 0 O CL v C E v, 6. 0. u G a� 'Q A. C7 Y F -� CC. jO OU 3 u •.� aU i Ste. f0 K s; C% n J m A. Qu n N n � n O a O r9 'C C n m O �' ro s`"i, C• CL m Err ° !CD C PCD Q O [~o �+ CD o ��----II g�-SS F+ Y C rD CD 6I err rF ey' C rp . w rD 0 C ro t* O ro `C n r�Dr"o O rr C, �ro rD O � rr �' ¢,'b a � n Q •s Cr C c ro R w n F D O ro d Q. a O a vroi Q D O. C o O. ay O G a p G Q, '* rr rD rD M R erD �* rC+ 6�1 ry rD R((DD n r�r G UGO C. ro C w 5 o -m m � CL w a R_ t EAw Q ° R C a rSo ❑. O p, n rD C rD � Ln Ln m r* G O S �•r�D�. rCD ra"r n n rD R ❑ O =. r' d a r C n ' tv r m n n m w =° ro rw, rD o 0 CD n a @ `y 6•raj S' �_ ^'' a r+ R S rp iA [A ro w Q rD aq m Q w Q w Ga m _ o o• a 0 o m a�:r vC vrD ii , ~ a^ -mss m 'rrn� r ` ate' Q= O rw•r D r" `� ro A. O rD CL CL FL CL m in r�•r ^•t Z w 'G a' O;o •0 w 'G w n -t m O `Cf z W [n Off. `� C b a m roo o In y rar C G r C, lc;�• ,O'R. a CrSo G C O ti O V5 Via1 w u`Ti p rDju . PCD �- G r%r a s �. `"s y cCn a n `CD :FV w ""s ^C Cl] C d n D ti '-h °rrt E3 � rr C7 ro o ,n" D= C sf Di, 7�` C o° ti a bd a rD CD rL -s pCa N n rt rD p a S cwo ww a ss D, w ro cz ¢ Q4 w y CD n rnr .w,i rCD rD .--r :J p �* n ° Ln rD S S `+ ° 'O S 0 C w C7 • n Q ro° G >C, O n O C. C O rD C n , Q •��, r•r C M C_ C wA C D M w rorn�� rD a cn d OS C r@r a C ID n -q m o O -q W rar y o tRD C rD G. r0+ 1 r"o 0 � 'w - S '00 � R, Ci � ro fl rD Z Ul c N rrDD ?��1 90i O ^G O 7 rt o G o reF a a a m o , si r'c p PD ri O•` - O 4 as a o 'a m" m o. 07 1 P'�' a a rD ' ro r S rr >C '? �• Q 0 @rD S rofu `C ra rD a o s r�o LD� a 0 a m Qp Q' G w @ oq 'U .%_ nr s d •�'"'C r6 'QC•' rD r -r ro C rt ^o w a S3. '0 to OS S rCp rr tti ?T. °r p—y O n ti C � m w m a C w P o C. o w os 7 0. @ °1 M ¢ CL EL m � � �• n w rbrDw G o0• '� rD � rrDD '- rD a w G o X m C Zp - PD r- '� n w ? K N m DJ o n rD ofD .7Ln 4 7 eG-r °{ •Q+, rGii O •CS �' rD CD :1 w rQr ,C -r o C � M r0} rSp N a r0 y Z7 f?- ro `n 4 ° �• - _0• rte} G rD n -ws Q ro D = G= CL ^+ C C C G da n rD p 2j w a b a r°Y 3 .D a, � o o o ro rao cr •ve, C r -r � '� � p �' 0 d w C- D rD 0 -: rCr o n w C. rrDD O G O aj a a O. x p- m m Qq n rD O Y w rD a. m a rD a a r* rDCDD C ry G CD • C y w r -r LA � � a• a d q• J - ro G a m r- a r r, ws rD r G a N — S 0 n rD roCLG Z w 'G a' O;o •0 w 'G w n -t m O `Cf z W [n Off. `� C b a m roo o In y rar C G r C, lc;�• ,O'R. a CrSo G C O ti O V5 Via1 w u`Ti p rDju . PCD �- G r%r a s �. `"s y cCn a n `CD :FV w ""s ^C Cl] C d n D ti '-h °rrt E3 � rr C7 ro o ,n" D= C sf Di, 7�` C o° ti a bd a rD CD rL -s pCa N n rt rD p a S cwo ww a ss D, w ro cz ¢ Q4 w y CD n rnr .w,i rCD rD .--r :J p �* n ° Ln rD S S `+ ° 'O S 0 C w C7 • n Q ro° G >C, O n O C. C O rD C n , Q •��, r•r C M C_ C wA C D M w rorn�� rD a cn d OS C r@r a C ID n -q m o O -q W rar y o tRD C rD G. r0+ 1 r"o 0 � 'w - S '00 � R, Ci � ro fl rD Z Ul c N rrDD ?��1 90i O ^G O 7 rt o G o reF a a a m o , si r'c p PD ri O•` - O 4 as a o 'a m" m o. 07 1 P'�' a a rD ' ro r S rr >C '? �• Q 0 @rD S rofu `C ra rD a o s r�o LD� a 0 a m Qp Q' G w @ oq 'U .%_ nr s d •�'"'C r6 'QC•' rD r -r ro C rt ^o w a S3. '0 to OS S rCp rr tti ?T. °r p—y O n ti C � m w m a C w P o C. o w os 7 0. @ °1 M ¢ CL EL m � � �• n w rbrDw G o0• '� rD � rrDD '- rD a w G o X m C Zp - PD r- '� n w ? K N m DJ o n rD ofD .7Ln 4 7 eG-r °{ •Q+, rGii O •CS �' rD CD :1 w rQr ,C -r o C � M r0} rSp N a r0 y Z7 f?- ro `n 4 ° �• - _0• rte} G rD n -ws Q ro D = G= CL ^+ C C C G da n rD p 2j w a b a r°Y 3 .D a, � o o o ro rao cr •ve, C r -r � '� � p �' 0 d w C- D rD 0 -: rCr o n w C. rrDD O G O aj a a O. x p- m m Qq n rD O Y w rD a. m `0 w a a ro a 'n O a '0 171 0 [11 c a T rt rD ro I w CDD b iw 9 w a rDDom. C q• J - ro G a m a r r, ws rD 0 4a p CDC Tq ra A 0CDa O ro G r' tD rt w a m -, r7 7r cn p• a !n FQ ro w � r•r rD `0 w a a ro a 'n O a '0 171 0 [11 c a T rt rD ro I w CDD b iw 9 w m Q C u V a y ro C L a Y d C 0 aci y0 U a. C CL 0. CL E In +�+ 4 ❑. Q N W -� C�� C 'a sa. N G y cd Q i v� C +a-' o¢Ei L O D L 3 v L �, C p D 'o a +� �• �ma�a3ipc°�i��a°''�o�oo u o ea w v C -G cLc 3 °�' 3 +' a o D a ¢ 0 C L a Q b a �0 O D Q O y Q c v 3 s�. 3 •o ca � to .o D. n -a o u � ,.r a L c D tGLn X 1 y Q G x fil QJ Q C Q sC C Q y C ovi r -Ln Q 4 ro 6 C as ro � u ru L'i Q C C r O w o Q= v y v m E C o O ro ro to 131 C Q Q ._ w-�.? o d C• .0 Q C s^ v O O Q w O 0 0 a v Q a V ro n P"4 —A .A V) Lq4C1 u V} Q,1 L TA � Q x a C1 4b b P u i D C cn p ro .N '- — u y Mtn C � -0 � O y o c o M o o O o Y `� bD L vi v Gt a tCC u N v �' C a 4s u w C ], +� O u a. -� Y ti b L u --� sQ wtr .y L- v z 0. sem• b 4�i CO p r6 C sem. Q tub u Ci D C d O D O v n �+ u Q rq n Or ro E— [s7 u T N i � U F Li Q '6 •' cu V � a C �� U .� C M. E_ y v Q 'B in ' L to Y %) �^ in GJ Q C J -a D rtl I C '� �' O ] C C •�• N ca a •+^, m .N a r� a Qtn 31 v. w V C cu y d ft, y v Y C a -* v_ L 'p •u -C 4:, u r - 111 N Q a3 0� 3 m a 3 b as .E ¢ E In +�+ 4 ❑. Q N W -� C�� C 'a sa. N G y cd Q i v� C +a-' o¢Ei L O D L 3 v L �, C p D 'o a +� �• �ma�a3ipc°�i��a°''�o�oo u o ea w v C -G cLc 3 °�' 3 +' a o D a ¢ 0 C L a Q b a �0 O D Q O y Q c v 3 s�. 3 •o ca � to .o D. n -a o u � ,.r a L c D tGLn X 1 y Q G x fil QJ Q C Q sC C Q y C ovi r -Ln Q 4 ro 6 C as ro � u ru L'i Q C C r O w o Q= v y v m E C o O ro ro to 131 C Q Q ._ w-�.? o d C• .0 Q C s^ v O O Q w O 0 0 a v Q a V ro n P"4 —A .A V) Lq4C1 u V} Q,1 L TA � Q x a C1 4b b P u i D C cn p ro .N '- — u y Mtn C � -0 � O y o c o M o o O o Y `� bD L vi v Gt a tCC u N v �' C a 4s u w C ], +� O u a. -� Y ti b L u --� sQ wtr .y L- v z 0. sem• b 4�i CO p r6 C sem. Q tub u Ci D C d O D O v n �+ u Q rq n Or ro E— [s7 u T N T VI C {u � 2 rt � o O � n � D m y I 41 rn 0 rnt fb m � p O 0 p vroi 47 w n n C p, W N ,yr @ LI) rt '--' ro y CL Ci ^0 w ^01 co 0.Ci m ' Q O"O S]. y A a M 7 7 (A 7 Cu sv (D CLq Q. C7.(D"°.^ -@s T. ?{. rt =• ¢, N 'm' y w rr A a O d `< a v o a> @ Q C C * ° ti Z v rD 'o -nc CL a 7 d U70 '1 25 P3 '> -0 `*S '.T' to "0 O p. a k0 O (D 0 O° CD o� n@-� 7 z (G (m '0 O a ID m C w .0.. A� � n 25'n r7 -r = O Cr (<D C C ((DD m CD y �- 3 (o p w ¢' n a. @ h @ Cl. =� < p, '�' w d rw-r O �+ w Q ��' m Q. %s p 3 R ry6 ¢ C rS a. C O .rL w n n m EFM Qq 7 O y CL CL ='•-G, m EA rnn V5C CL < r v m o -, `n O w �- 0 CD @ CD d m m a w @ S 67 C6 �- rt n m VS n 0 @ 7C y 9 z -c a CL @ (D rL @ @ n ' w CL -1 x3 O rpt Z EA rip rt a' 'Z cin b Ll to w 0 @ rn @ rt O CL y O O `C' w ' CD,5Dy. rpt C O O y 7 (gyp w �' SCC euro CZ. O �• O O+v @ O (D rD � rt C � r•r �• CL k y ai C rD Q n tCl to w *+ 95 L7 w y CA n : w a C @ 5 o 'c @ 7 7 @ Cs 0 (yD O(D 7 to a N rt r9 O.� y @ R o o o w o o°* C ro C w ryt cwRn w rD @ F CLa fD y n O✓ O C= > n C °wroCLz � Z tp„ y z G Cpm a rii FL p m o _ (D O ro rY �' ray .O O p p@ pS p O Cx - QLM rt W 'C CT M oCD M rT tj n n = W n, rD n Q 0 py _Z (D C ro r m 0� r- \ a' @ �. O 7 [N O s O _ ` 0 7 w N K 070 p7 � C 67 � ?3 r -r w � rwr cD CL 55 @ C -n @ = C Cn ¢.O4Q- m@ `� @ (CDD (D CD o c '0 -3 a ° O M m w y a n@ fro G OOetw ] C ro D a n CMD 0 C C O '� .'(•( 12 B ¢' Z C: CL m CL0r CL 7S' n C m m rr CL rpt n -CDsrD CCD 9a W w rt w a,!�rD 1+ (u rD r7t C' r'o rs to rD D7 ri ver (�xro k. rD° CD - (D QQ'. �w p ¢y a ID M C (D ro Q yoyaw w"Od a -rlD rt w e a n (D O w R Q p a' o < y G W O rt CL n 7 Q Q rp ro y x < rt p ro n G 7Q ti fD Ln @ tv rip Qjw fn y rt w C ¢' a '.?. y' CL p rr ,X a w O C 'n't �r O C M CL n ns a Q O m v Z (CD Rw rr T d CL T7 En -n0, 4 x n rt O ((DD (n' rt 7' [ ] p q' (D Oq Cl c A: E C 4P Cn O O y O w Q C in W @ CL a' 07q ro \ �C O rpr rRt' > rt y Ln EA Dpi @ r�D tV D Q. 03 O. ° CL (yp y N m7 0 C @ ED W w rr O y N y�(D O C m w r- o o m o rflD w CD o C oa17' °c El a3 M- 0 rro r�r Q Q. < ¢= prD •°dO•y� Cl +" ° Cs. —� T (D 0 7 rt p L rwr ^.y y C(7Q 97 W D@d 'p ro CA M a" ro o a o m n � (D C Gs " y D (D w° H F o p ° a w (fro n d w @ 7 0 rr m O -r, p CD (D • � c DZ tn CL tj y Cs Q v, M w x R rCMD CD y @ w o a m o Q. as Lm ro w a. o m R n @ n a Q a C rt Di o fa- w9 ro CL CL ^ (a ( S (D rt 55 "U <• �, !, rA �' , rpt ro fl1 a1 n b v (D rD m �.� " a w m R C° 0 C (D ro Cyr O aQ•�n (D CD -0C3-a 01 to < <= rrD rt rb 7 e@• a N G m C @ 'D v@yi �. a D -�'y R. (ro '� O• Q rM. • C FD- p C d a< rt w o w rt° a a a -s rq m C' LA CD M m °i a 0 0 0 Ln a C R < Q @ rt ... W rt J Ln O 7 y Z P� �• •W. rL p. 'O• "� y O IrD Crnn y ra v C -�( �_ C_ Q CA "yt rD LA @ca 7 7 7 N¢ [7 IDrt @ CD y 7 FQ .y COD C @ r'• it rrtt n @ w y @ p `S O `s 6i rt Cr p C d @ y �. O • A� r=' (D • rt L> a m a tin (D W + 7 ..• Q XD w Ca- rr H al Q rD rt rG m C O M A p (D fly @ p M EL a 7 O rQ ru C. T CMC� y -S (➢ n � ❑ as rr 0 v N- C 3 O < O a w Q @ a N W. -C O 0 Z y' C w � o O � al 'S y I 41 rnt fb O Ci-+ CL a -rlV n n o o b CA 07 Q 0 O 0 p vroi 47 w n n C p, W N ,yr @ LI) rt '--' ro y CL Ci ^0 w ^01 co 0.Ci m ' Q O"O S]. y O @ C a '0 ''+ M W `wi rn-r rt Q (11 M n^ Ma' � @ n � � m � Q (D� w �_ a Q.0 � fl (A 7 C]. O Q. C7.(D"°.^ -@s T. ?{. rt =• ¢, N 'm' y w rr A a O d `< a n. a n A P rD C@ rt C_ a> @ Q C C * ° ti Z v rD 'o -nc CL a 7 r�D .r+ O a ID m C w 7 rL = o O ro O p av,•ta EA CL < r v m o -, `n O w CD @ CD d m m O rpt Z EA rip rt a' 'Z rD C 7 b Ll to w 0 @ rn @ rt @ SCC euro CZ. O �• O O+v @ C y ai C rD Q n tCl to w R @' o 'c 0 (yD O(D 7 to a N rt r9 O.� y : w C w @ n n O✓ O C= > n C tp„ y z G Cpm a rii FL _ (D O ro ray .O O p p@ pS p O Cx - QLM rt W 'C CT G] oCD M tj n n = W n, rD py _Z (D C ro r m 0� r- \ a' @ 9 nR _ ` 0 7 w N O @ C -n @ = C M m w OOetw ] C ro D a n CMD 0 C C O '� .'(•( 12 B ¢' Z C: CL m CL0r CL 7S' c'09 C m m rr CL rpt n -CDsrD 9a W w rt w a,!�rD ri p ¢y a ID O (w7 k Ln `w'( w (D ro fn y rt w C ¢' a '.?. y' CL p rr ,X a w m v Z (CD < G CL T7 En -n0, 4 x n y E C 4P Cn O @ CL a' 07q ro \ �C rpr rRt' > rt y Ln (yp y N m7 0 C @ w rr m w r- o o m o rflD w CD o C oa17' °c El a3 M- 0 rro r�r Q Q. < ¢= Caro @ ro CA M (D C Gs " y D (D w° 'O CA (fro n d w @ 7 0 rr m O -r, p CD (D • � (9 (7n DZ tn CL tj y Cs Q v, M r�•r M R o a m o Q. as Lm @ Di o fa- w9 ro CL ^ 55 "U <• �, !, rA �' , rpt ro fl1 a1 n b v m �.� " a w m R C° 0 C (D 9 01 to < <= rrD rt rb 7 v@yi �. a D -�'y R. (ro '� O• Q rM. m a< rt w o w rt° a ¢- M m °i a 0 0 0 Ln a C R < Q @ rt s rt J Ln IrD Q CA "yt LA @ca .y COD C ro ID C d @ y ..• Q XD w * m C O M A Cw~n rQ n � ❑ rw�•r Cn � W. -C O 0 Z P. M v R v N v rG G a1 d W 4w a. C •a 47 O C ra n. tic O O a. U U .� to O D '❑ N O f4 ]� Q. CC � N tU., ❑. N U SC, i a' -� 4-jy O U rC v_ ] cn C u L y <O ~L' CO '3 ,� QJ VI.� �. p y NrLC vii , L a+ t4 of -0 O �^ .� N U G - N �" C» y ,� 4]J v C p CG O v •� U va R, Ab O O r++ .� '6 C] 'fl m 0. � G y A ro .c d O a rC m ° .� � to � N %J GO ca � °? y o d v as U _ u a� y U cu mC ar M o cyi m O bb �' v, y is [i] :3(,I C) (D A O ❑ " k] +-+ i dto -d N 7 W N Q-. ~ r y y tu aJ Q> 9 r hDaj C ❑ act a, li 'v •y = o o to m o -a o m tj rL' a/] V. fC CJ L U a ib G A C ti ` 9 j 6l � o 7 �' G) m u b a] +� -s7-- U a +� a a w V CU V M 3 'a C C r-^ G U lu a--� n '✓] U � iii .� U ri/ •.� � O � U C � {l] 4 y rz _ CC 4Ln .0 to m Q3 v WC to Cd y A ti U C U O .a. C u rtS y al y .❑ C C aJ d as O] v, v d a1 v u EO- w6 O as Cid 'C ➢' i.+ +' U •b _�z x, alwr3 •Q. aJ cin 7A va.° CJa as aL C b f]4 -a O btea! -CV. —0to tic O O a. U U .� to O D '❑ N O f4 ]� Q. CC � N tU., ❑. N U SC, i a' -� 4-jy O U rC v_ ] cn C u L y <O ~L' CO '3 ,� QJ VI.� �. p y NrLC vii , L a+ t4 of -0 O �^ .� N U G - N �" C» y ,� 4]J v C p CG O v •� U va R, Ab O O r++ .� '6 C] 'fl m 0. � G y A ro .c d O a rC m ° .� � to � N %J GO ca � °? y o d v as U _ u a� y U cu mC ar M o cyi m O bb �' v, y is [i] :3(,I C) (D A O ❑ " In +-+ i C -d ao c C .-a D Q-. ~ t6 aj ro y tu aJ Q> as -G .� v G - y C hDaj C ❑ N •y .� C m o o to m C °' a, 0 C 5 v c 7 tra cu tj rL' a/] V. fC CJ L L3. L1, 4= 4- [C a L � y � •n y c 3 � � � o M cw r Q C as Cm❑ U as 0.s y w b a u w -a u cna v Z Z •ci +� -s7-- U a +� a CU vv) C C N O O� OJ 'a C C r-^ A 4i yA•, a 7 tL O C °+' ouit i L a� b 4 y _ CC 4Ln .0 to m Q3 v tic O O a. U U .� to O D '❑ N O f4 ]� Q. CC � N tU., ❑. N U SC, i a' -� 4-jy O U rC v_ ] cn C u L y <O ~L' CO '3 ,� QJ VI.� �. p y NrLC vii , L a+ t4 of -0 O �^ .� N U G - N �" C» y ,� 4]J v C p CG O v •� U va R, Ab O O r++ .� '6 C] 'fl m 0. � G y A ro .c d O a rC m ° .� � to � N %J GO ca � °? y o G LM hD U _ u a) bA U cu mC ar .G C 7 c��j a� O bb �' v, y is [i] :3(,I V) C W C O ra A O d y O a) +V+ b .'7 O ao c C .-a D Q-. ~ t6 aj ro y tu rA Q> as -G .� v G - y C hDaj C ❑ .� C m o o to m C °' a, 0 C 5 v c 7 tra tic O O a. U U .� to O D '❑ N O f4 ]� Q. CC � N tU., ❑. N U SC, i a' -� 4-jy O U rC v_ ] cn C u L y <O ~L' CO '3 ,� QJ VI.� �. p y NrLC vii , L a+ t4 of -0 O �^ .� N U G - N �" C» y ,� 4]J v C p CG O v •� U va R, Ab O O r++ .� '6 C] 'fl m 0. � G y A ro .c d O a rC m ° .� � to � N %J GO ca � °? y o U _ u Y O cc P U CL wCO 4- t6 U y 'O O bb �' v, y is [i] 0 y A G C tn O ',., Q. U G V 41 y 70 ❑ O G7 y 3 z .❑ O .0 o a .a O a b .'7 O ao c C .-a D Q-. ~ t6 's= y ,• j, N o o y F .0 O °3' 4 LO, as -G .� v G - y a) tm .{^� '" .� G.� yr45 CO C Qi +,❑ a O o 0 4" 'u fV4 p d 0 'd V] m .. �--� V} L/) rL' a/] V. fC CJ L L3. L1, 4= 4- [C a L � y � •n y c 3 � � � o M cw r Q C as Cm❑ U as 0.s y w b a u w -a u cna v Z Z •ci r,3 rl vv) C C N O O� p p U O d Ln a mz �n °+' ouit a� b 4 y _ CC 4Ln Cd y A ti U C U O .a. C u rtS y al y .❑ C _ aJ O] v, v d a1 O v u EO- w6 O 'C ➢' i.+ +' U •b ] x, alwr3 •Q. aJ cin 7A N 7C., CJ A_ a5 a-+ U .0 U as C b f]4 -a O btea! V 0:j w.= sa. to v) .Q U 0.. d 0 aJ � b +❑' L N 0 71 fn 'C G w t4 "ti C rtl ate+ b '� 0 C v N A N 4i �i n aJ A v 00 �-, O 3 cu u 3 ,n i y^� "�, • r ami u C V ,-, i6 �'„ Q u A ,.• V GS ,,,, Q. � �. Vs aJ Q. cG rtl C ra m C + — y C A R. ¢ G rU6 ❑ rUtl C a, A O ... t4 w a] ,a.% 'U 'G C y _❑ A M .> y' 4- ,--� SC O a) �' y a) > 0 'v G1 . s ❑ CRC, ,b S�. C ❑ ] "^ p, c� 7 aj aGi u V Q z. v U CU •y G c7 tc Qf ++ n a]j O tC ]-, 3 -CYy h❑ d bn �o ro y ° °�' r o d a b° u y; L y -v O Ln Lj u U aJ m '+� m U] r W vui (b ] O� p •B ] O y4u-. �V, ] rn O 'tS to O '[J .a ❑. i � 'd S] hq'� •d a+ �+ cn C7 b CS ct5 V) •� V G � U rC %� z v +, aj 4 v U G rl W Y a w L m � -d . 4) N -0 cu r-' a•+ SC v az"i V Y a m c cu i G m� a ] 47 W r- v N Q O " d w G G. Q r w N (-9 (-D N C .Q r p = C Q S w ro 0� C O C- O frta P R W .J- G' rD Q (D@ Di n CD O ma; a s pi ro z A N O "+ N C `C O -s Q. fD fRo n ro rt ❑. ro w Zn 0 CL CA rD @ m rY H N rD rD N O 't3 fRD F a rt CCD III rL O (" 7yfD CD n m Q D~k G m a CL Q -0s 0r3 `Q Ct. EL CD n 0 n X' m (0n Di n EL Q7 G w O C. rt y C nC R O a Ei. A. R �Frl. " .`r N ! - A ro y a (D n y �C rD -9 7� fn rD '' z rro w � ° N Da Qn o CID ,C -r � M ID F w= 10 w ° rn °' n O" C" -t -3n Q Aa �. m G O d VI 7 cD ° O 'OY rt. L Q o t' -t ?co W rDN o A to 0, y0 �' -wy rD w C CD W- rr E' n C Q rt p C y y O N w n t7 �. -Ci C al CD '0 w '* �' C b (VDi fwi = n w C C c CCD O z R rr rD ? (D wr ro 0 �O O -s (D' O 4 CD .°.h CCD rCD Q 67 cCD ro y Q ' 3 rrDD Z -+ CMD CD CD 0 CD R a w Oq _� 9 m N SD N ro CD 0 rt M p Qq rt n D� rD n CD [" n O O CSD d w Co w C J rt rt En CD ° O rl .7 .y '-h W y CDID G7 N z .d as 'C7 N M o n C❑ C ti C tD y n rL Ort S N w ro C y n O r '9 a 7 C rD a n n 0 In b rt ro 7 w L4 G ° N ro rt -3 ro h 7 w n ro "0 0 A w rt c' ro m A w n CD 0 m n • -s w m A .rl CA Ln Ln n CC 07 O rr _. O n ai 7 a' O O (D '3 C Q ro ■- ,roy ; C CD rD O n W = O n G m❑ rt n tar "� W 0Ln ro n a y P' d ro< Vi ti(D o A < rD �((DD rt n0 ^n n EEL rD C om CD CD • A+ n nl cn L7 0 r -r 9 T C N � rD N a M.� n C ° O � :� C rn•' n. � 007 eroe D O C d 7 ro C .Cy C `Ri rt � � r rD a • rD a �• a '9 a 7 C rD a n n 0 In b rt ro 7 w L4 G ° N ro rt -3 ro h 7 w n ro "0 0 A w rt c' ro m A w n CD 0 m m .rl CA n CC 07 p _. S C C Q ro ■- -F, O n O 7 v tl w rnD n CrL r -a rD a Vi ° 95 < rD �((DD rt n0 ^n n EEL z C ro O 77 • 7 cn L7 0 = M.� n ro ro rD rt .� w rCo D rt rD • �. Ort wNp n CD 0 �' r 0 SD '9 a 7 C rD a n n 0 In b rt ro 7 w L4 G ° N ro rt -3 ro h 7 w n ro "0 0 A w rt c' ro m A w n CD 0 m Cr M w d' U r o rc s J a a'ryi_ Q a L V�1 {YC a aj N cn N Q L Ln C6 Q rG = m O N cu O Q B N a a w w cn ro a 0 a r0..- O ...... N a N 'C7 a L a 9J C cn = ��<cnQ aczs 7, Ln a y Q O W C a ,cu CO Y N C U �• cn YY �' a y a a as Lr' , fl7 O L Y 1..+ a y ro r -I L.J aQJ cn m o cu 0 a "Cl Ln v Ua roz' dai 4 C4 ro m o aoi n O o .= G C X v V7 V7 Q Q V w ... o-1 N In o f fE a L °' [n LnCN v O i]. Y v '�' Y 'CS N a Y a d C CLcu tx- > C .� Gi � j G1 Ln a cc V) Cl, cc 0 a4 O cc W s V L ro SL6 v 'CS •O O L Z '� O E a; 0 U , d C C m0 Ln 4i Y +� rC Qi m Q Z [CG d N V CY cn n. ro ro ¢ ti ❑ 7 Q L O a cn V� cn 4 L a .ti Y C) Q E Daj F" V ❑ C 'b a Y a ,'' cn O N7;5 W cC C O 'd ,y?, =� w CZ] cC C .G i� R ca y� O c4 Q Z 7 D yx.., O O C D U N- N N y N O 0 C 'C ia. [76 'b 'Q `CS L ❑ f4 Ln a 5p ^--� 7 L Q �+ V5 ra v 'aj a a��-,, cm qy `, r, 'C C 'cn p cy'.� O+ ; L V) ryG •� 'u, ryC 0 C 5 a '� 0= -C y p N Eli can 4 Y a ^� In ro L .5`. O SC V ¢. O? G 0 o 1-- Y U V u ro t a o F" ro d La o v C g o u N u.ro- Uy Ln a0 a M L O -O C II u a L "O a v cn m y C a p H ❑ Y 11) a a y C p a a N O y N a W C 7 2r y y Ln Cl. rC yai O Q y J R$ Y a aa+ Y a❑ U ,L O U Q V] V7 V7 a 47. a •� b V y O ro Y Z a..+ yMCN ` 0)i en M o w cu U sa. 6 A O. .a can o Q Ln -;jm V a .� C G as y L .E� '� p 0 a B U a d O d v m j v ,� +1 m v U Y 1110 va p a Q +' G W C❑ Ja m ar w � 4 a wGO U QC a � vaLi E i1U ro EfV a Q u a dpM �rC ims a O U ❑ v -m Q m VQ ro NU O m Vd a E a - c m � C � c v � o y Y C E O O L EnN Q6 O OQ W Z O a V W < w � a � � N N LL O � y C � O V) C rr n N' ro CL C CP rt m c ro C O lV C p C6 N '"' N in N O w -mss D• 0 .D rL -~ -1 `< C. rD m M ro n dt9 rt a - w ❑ = '*. ro r-, Z5 m V) ro C. a p- ^ Ln Cn Ln Ln R Qj CL CL ate; a� � m rt r~o 'o m ry C w � G m � D a a rn 0 rn•' = fi 0 0' m C r�D n W fD O Gy OwGrO .sM �O N'a_i 3 C<C c^o 4C 'G Crto ro n C Cp ~ -t CL `° m y' -�, a `G m ° W , o o �. a m v y rop ti f° R rn m ro ov _ w -: -i n 2 D o 0 p O c ro w R a In w �, m D r3 a@ a ry ro n0 =. w n m `�'- �. p 'd r=r ''' O �' ^ Z s' D. P- Q' a rNa as `< w °;, No ro p cii t\7 C' y D. -i n rl < '� r r" ro i ' 67 rt p D [i] {D $" C9 rt n rt M. � C] N o D '� rt `r3 � M '.:' C � D. y O ,vn w w r<D W t9 O 7�" [n [9 C �. O C D y Ln C9 w y M. m a �. -Rs_ -s D' "C3 7 r. m = R Cn Z C 7 ro n wi -i rt rD -f rp D Z CP W w "wJ CrtL D. 7 �' 1 QC F w' O n m "'0 M M r•' a N M rn i1. P0.1 O CL C rto Q' w n py ^�7 `C 7 SD cn rr m .1 rt mrr y rr A+ �' C' Grr y i 7 rt .0 rG ' C w C ^ a C D m ¢ o o n cn c V) w rt w ^tl C CD cD = CrtD rte; a� 'I -o ro '•n a' �• a' w °J ui is cn re fl rte* r --r rt " cr .1 CCD n w co w wV) Cr a' Ln w z V c 4 0 w w� m C -s n�0 'A 5 a' ro w [;rcn M O �. `C CD n N rF m or•r rpr �='•s m �' 'C M N N n CSG M O ,. O-' ' Ort w O. �' m `nr%r C d At 7 yD, �. D m ° N M. O° {n v rt `7 r; C. �!' y rt ro Or4 w Oa ,C ,•S• D. Z b D. C. ro W c] to r9 e%r n ro -ns rpo d C' a �' w n °-' o n P C=7 o R 7 O. D n@ -Ri a p �. rho Lm n O w � 04 cn O O R C rt• ~o D C Q. [T 7' r^P ^- 4 4 C y Qq" T, O �. 7' O H 0 _,tin M y A� a p- H D n R ro Cp -s C y En y 2 7 b rp n D o p Cn • f a f4 [xR 9 n [D iR4 m < O w 47 C to rw-' rt ^w -I -Qn C C w (Q "�S' D D, .w�. ,Y n D, : ' ro !D 'Z •s w .� '�'. w a. w D D D w D D to C a O n N w D D C w D uDi rt us C 03 �< D. Crl m ra p, O r0 m IV _ a ¢ ro M cnul CAC/� rt w rt w ;q •� 0. �[ (D CD rL Cep CD ay acl; m ro b M '•a c -a cn rpt a V O O v 00 r�D n W rn ... n ,Y rt rt [Tj ,yam �. C_T ,T X17 c ro �- [rl f D p ro m n c c D s D Ian O y0 It 41CA M < w Oro rt w rt n°er w -a CDUl d p.a'a CD ry Ic CA D U, nM- COD C' O M O rt w15 cn � C C CL ''•' Q rtCD -s 47 n J a m w C CD m a m w R c� r0 W G rn m a i, ro C L aJ Y d w 4J F L a! d U n. P. G 0 V d b u C G m r— W 4;QW cn N + N cn q71 rr- ti F Q) G F cn ] cc L c4 a, m s, cuci V] Ln , A y v hp vCi 'b O aY. ra F a��1 y ' Im "D p r+ -'G G 7-. ccu Al Y aJ In � •� L Fr ' O U CU v Y G C L r— O LD C7 u U Z O c s. rz N U C4 O— cm cu U W)ut+- Vi L > N M Cj Y N U ct C � a Ln 6. tn .0 y.; 'B 3_ > aiY O U o a � C Y L U S. CU E ao �' «S L fl. 'P Q} S-. G% G L ,.O F f'z 'b +' a1 U aJ u +•' yyVi > fa YO y ++ c d_ y (a (a L, ca U fa F d > cs G' a. 45 ¢ai C7 O C C O-0 m V U Q U bz 4 Y u c o z c — :" YO c a a° G C v aj v C O u d G O cn N a N cn u d rr- ti F Q) G F cn ] cc L c4 a, cn Y s, cuci V] Ln , A y v hp vCi 'b O aY. ra F a��1 y Im "D p r+ -'G G 7-. ccu Al Y aJ L v .b u �f-, aJ N "'= L O U Fr ' v, U � ,ti' v Y G C L W U D L y y O LD C7 u U Z O c s. F F C N U C4 O— cu U W)ut+- Vi L > N M Cj Y N U ct C � a Ln 6. .0 'B t aiY O 4 [a fi as �/% F a ca C6 aJ ✓ y C Y V C L O. S. N 'a� N a y �' «S L fl. 'P Q} S-. G% G L ,.O F f'z 'b +' a1 U aJ u +•' yyVi > fa YO y ++ y C y (a (a L, ca U fa F d U C, DL G' a. 45 ¢ai C7 O C C O-0 m V U Q U bz Y YO G O F Vj •�• F .� y y C �•, b U C a P u ¢ u d rr- ti v C a� G G F cn ] cc a. ar c4 a, cn Y s, cuci V] Ln , A y v hp vCi 'b O aY. ra F a��1 y Im "D p r+ -'G Y- Al Y aJ L v .b u �f-, aJ N "'= L O U Fr v, N Y � ,ti' v Y G C L W U D L y y O LD C7 u U Z O c s. F F C N U C4 O— C Y U W)ut+- Vi L > N M Cj Y N U O Cri U0 '� Ln 6. 'B aiY �, aJ �' [a fi as �/% F a ca C6 aJ ✓ y C Y V C L O. S. N 'a� N a y �' «S L fl. 'P Q} S-. G% G L ,.O F f'z 'b +' a1 U aJ u +•' yyVi U W fa YO y ++ O U y al v, "b E L, ca U fa d m Q M¢ y U 6, d¢ -- .- P" O ,a G' a. 45 .� QS -0 .�' C7 O C.7 a u O-0 m V U Q U bz F Vj •�• F .� y y C �•, b U C a P u ¢ u d rr- ti v C a� G G F cn ] cc a. ar c4 a, w m t4 3 V] V4 V] Ln to ^ fY"J np =j fud U y O ra v i yF-, 'O LF, p W C O -fl cri 3 a1 3U.. V Or O CV a, L v o y L Ln 0 o r a7 75 C d — V G[C a tV O F tz ra y V •Z, E �, O N sn y y W 's, i U .0 C ^, P P= rG y 'CS ?-, �, U O O (u � vYi En .� ti DA y E G C cu p C y to cu u C v m A i i y '� L ' y •� O y CJ GY o o vas as m rUn '� cbv v rG u u N F, C,7 uu U Z w o 4 m u u OL m .-i G F a P V ¢ V Q rr- ti U U F F cn ] cc � - 'H m c� y L y L a) 'D , A ai w 1 o rr- ti CUo c c cn ] cc � - 'H m c� y v w v m ca y o V C •m i, L L Q, "' ra y u v, � ,ti' m d E cDis b LD C7 u U Z O c u tLo a� Q LM V7 ti a� Q „LA C a Z mi D n 3 0' n m 3 o 3 b ID N 3 m v m 3 n ate, O 3 rD !. rD C!) C) Gn w n C M w �p ” w rr w n G CD r+ m y W w w a C ro sn ro o oa A m ro It, n m❑ m C n I ?7 -% -, C Z G m rD a' y C O m m m x• y G '+ "�' N rt '� it -e y ro y n 7f rD O n m rho �" x C rD C L]. G '." n rmt to 0'Q d _�' 'CS -m•S m -O ct. q C r9 -cl Ln - m '� 0 a) w rt C �' .-. R arm rt G m py 'C "s rt m rn G' a ,y n o A G o Win_? n aq r- ?� rD o a, rD m 'r�� ° °a (D kD9 !. 3 w 7 !. O � 6mia)Cfl. =r O5 -fin. ;C C_ w su 'd = O. Z '•n a rt-' ( rt "fit pGj O n '� W ' w v N Q OCr u CSU 0. n rL G7 -M S CS O O O O1) n n On w cn rG•r G n ¢' n ^. ❑ rCD� O '[3 ❑ an) n ^., C 77 rC•r w N m .p C On ° o D O eD Ln -z G r' ❑ rt of m C y V) O w y •'_ �' O al CC r, rD .a yr C C rp C, O 0' .,j m .y ° w n 7C '' �• C' 'x3 � O C m n ai m 0 w Q-❑ .w.� rt,o ''� w [~D w Off• xa W wOQ D fl. '� m m a C w O, ro vi to :n e=r G m rCr cr O a w rho w w ul m~ w rD m o ( m m w c x w C�. o x w O°1 o w a�L CL aU) °- rn rD rw•r w n d D1 7 ❑ C w rt .1 e+ rD CL r+ 7 O CA• !. �d 'a CA w r. C n ^c n n w n D' CL A) w n > '-h 1V ro ."� rt rt C, n ro `+ > [7 rD m ''* n O C O O O O n CLO O O lD G rD o- O w° ❑ ❑ O m O p O" p O. C r/) C- 7 � 7 C f0 Cry rt n Q• Q. e+ rt rr �• A) "a rr C rD W O rr r4 rt p 7 C rt En rt C ., C <p rCt w < = C. C "*. w 0 'Cl rD M Cap• N p vi• O a n = O O Q• ro_ ti w m G =. c A Q ro m a m w a y 7' rt= ~1 rna w a- n C rD a C w R n �- n O m °Rf T_ ❑ rn ❑ C' -was rD n. w ❑ �•! 0 n w ❑ n O w 4 'O C.rs `C ro rn C. C N' O FL rD Lnw w fl. '* O 'G o a ry-r gym-' C. n .wy ❑• O G M b C a ur w y w ro O t9 n ,'� rt w 7 G rD ^t7 w w rt, ~_ -1 "2 ¢- -y -•c O T O' `- n * G 2 C w .Y w v �s a w rD rt O rD rD " T v) O �-n rt O a• rD Cn m C - i '" w w O o G „t N �+ 7 w F. , G a O in .Y < w a O n C c -mz d rD C ¢ w C m rD O d O C u ,foj an p r4 m r�p n W ani ''M w w °' r�D ,rty ¢' 7 n °; w a, a. m y m �' rD n <`Y ,Ov.. m ¢• y CD M CAD C p C rt' O rp cn fl �' m 5' w o 0 w LT. rD b0 rD � O. O 'C a s ^C! m� n O� 7 w M n-_• m `�° w L s as cD rD m m W Q a rt + m CL a y D. �- M 7 V G a n 10n a' rm0 C* z m D- m C O m ^�, a 0 C p, C ❑ [17 V) 7 [" ] m-, O^ `w m m m C m r-' C f•- +� ty m 'C CD r�•r ro s1 F+ 7y w -1 0 .b w = ran w a n z n y R - 3 9 -° W^ * aro C ro sz r* va y ro n) u n C .. rD y C y O m❑❑ 4 O' (%) rL R A GElrD C_ O x m M .y _ 'rJ ti pW rD, -SrL CD n y m -1 m aq Q4 G.0e n) a m ro' n n fl. C y cn ,, ❑ v ^- C a -e u' aa3 m Q n Q _. ro a' R m m _a. = ,) > n m Ln _. a -z G rt m a' C Yl O rD '-r e••r w �, 6 ° O G R• rt• f<6 C � w Am) r+ rt F m n ¢' R CC6 O C r<D O' w �. n n >•✓- C �; cj :T �••� CL ' w rY w `� ro ❑ G ❑ C w m �' O. -y m t�6 w m O w R. w O• :n a �, O C N C G O.:D m `< O O cn n r' r<o P. j 7 a) p) 0 vwi -1 O A) w P- [D 7nC .°•n rD _CL O" !�D _rt � a � =� G 'r 'C C � rD m Ei r J'< r7 O T rt y C' w w O C b `"' " w ti G ti m< s°n v r9 rCp• ❑ � tpn rY m ^y 'G a O �ca ' T. y n n '� G. �'+ `C 7 fl. �W�' w cnCD -sA r�D w�+ p u•) o �S. n, C O. w M rY �' a .� C tan) Gwa ry ro r/Y S9 O A7 G .'•s N .�`i ~` O '� n. rD e. Vi CD m rp m CD rt -v'Yi w m `C a) n 1 CD7 fl. O. C W m rD y m w ar w = a a-fA [ ti F, r* a' y .9 a w Y z rt w o aro cn rp R O G. T m G a n" O m w w a 0 Z rn r9 o c C �-n (t C❑ a) CD m a 0. ro m m rG�� ° ¢� w rD m w r_ o. 'n Q,= c o cD rD r'CD o CG a {n- rC�r m n• Q Q rCp n'S �_ m r rrDD C r<Dy ro y Sn w ro w > 7 o r�D n '«.' raD CD rF [�i-J 0 'fir a Q- w O' ❑ ra G ti � O' 0 C7D x w O O y 7 Ar 'ti Oro '�. x rw•r fD -1 R m a �? r' C M � 5c � a) y- C Q C O Ln � rr W oa M n 4 O. n n• d tD w n 'n n [<„yD =. t9• w m a n 9) y. j Q CD O :' w C. m W O CL ro n� R d �p O 0- C 7 ami rrtD n n [Nn * U rD w y p y 0 rr F z w `G. 'I C `C C n [CD `�' rL w O y n H' c �• � c c R Z T rR6 a G Ln w OG ^ C�7 `C "r LA �• w R n cr a w 7 C0 mrn 0C ,w5 ry .y y m rt 7 7 T! C w w w rD C 0] M nw CD Id w p; y w a CD rD TA ... ❑ m n �+ w C G '* = w 'i 4 7 O w C a y ... m C ..1 o- w • C 1, O v1 .t, m n m 7 < A= 7 w L r•r 7 O. .y �• n G rY 0 r•r ❑ tD r.: .w.S OCD _ C w a• C, C �• C m rD n. < n w p, w n n w ~ C 0 r•r r~km C. <- ^ >7'-h_z y m mm e O .. M -t D m D rt C m S F. Ian rt' r'zr rD m c g n [n ncni Ikrye n r•' ,C '�' � C �D O rp p• n rt, D) .mr rD W m w C ^z CL- ' n '= w rD CL w�7 r) m a m n r�D xLq y 0 0 q� c�0 a r.. w 'Y w N x C, "'1 � rD rD ❑ r~D ° w w -1cl 1 O 'b m eDDrD CL a -sra.C D rD E fn a y C W w o m y N N o �+ b cn W d l0 n A) ❑ 7 ro rD4 C. m m � < 3 w ° EItj rn El G m V) 7 M V) C @ fu ro -0r(D O am m � 0 61 G rD � R m r•' rt c c m w ami M 0 � O @ O < ,rt a a ro m rt ro m i C w C rD w n C 0 m 5 O D m E N C u y� j S6 C L ry Y C d,1 Y Q S..) C.. a a. d' 4] C� L u w L4, O Qy Cn v cG G v v Mu N C U L ro 0 U O+. G] r� •C .n 7 } *� � U v d L r O C o L y o v Y V 7 VO p 0 r1 � a i4 61 A rG O O vi fl v •j Y y w i .y r -i N ^c� Q] Vyf v � []. Fes. ami GS y Q7 y [A r m ;..+ LA fi [d ro f7 i ro N cn v] v] v] U s. L � w un Ld 6. O 0.1 Q d _ u 0 0 DD tM. O fl. I ro C m C as y fl ILI? 0 3 o tC P a, O C rn ¢ rr m cn 7 O u cu N O O a G 7 Ll 7 V] v C tc i C CLn r O U, Vi 7 cn 7 4] C M 7uJ y I .O ?' ro ro GJ Y V c a it L U rLc v O Ln C ro$ [3 O .0 y .0 y Fu o O U y Q .O rn CC .1- N O v im,,, 0 P 4L O w b o o n °G° a °�° ° ao U C. a o L..0 o c Y y �, V7 o Y �o W c ro .a t4- -o ° 7CO 0 C C O 0mO L. 0 v a] u v NUO{ - ce,tw V] N o OX Y ci.., U [n Fl. 4- ID pA Fl. G] 4] C G UY_ ,? L L L. P -f r -Ii V7 5 y v Y A y ro Ln y roIVa ra o y O V Q,1 y _ 7 ,? L y Off'.. L L N 91 O < ?a m t O L cC i. cG O y .y O j fV�6 � :3 C G1 N tUd +C) rG +u v V) °a 3 aLo ou ra yV., 3 fQ Y C � d +� _ ca Q a aroi o. aro] � s d 4 a] v v P, '0 r= b ro ro ro +� v] V) En cn cn cn d' 4] E L u w L4, O Qy Cn v cG G v v Mu N C Q Y L ro 0 O O+. G] r� •C .n O y *� L U v sv 'G L r O C o L y o v Y V 7 VO p 0 r1 � a i4 61 A rG O O vi fl v •j Y y w i .y r -i N ^c� Q] Vyf v � []. Fes. ami > v •Y 44 L O [A r m ;..+ LA fi C0 U N ` � o L � w un 6. O 0.1 Q d _ u 0 0 DD tM. O fl. I ro C C as C ro 0 3 o tC P a, O C rn ¢ m cn 7 O u v ,� c4 m ,n A �y L ro L LN 7 V] a U] U7 co4; cR o cm VD C CLn Vi 7 4] C M 7uJ y I .O ?' ro ro 'G © G 7 c� w � L d^ rLc v O Ln C ro$ [3 O .0 y .0 y Fu o O U y Q .O •� O .O ro ro O L V N O v im,,, 0 P 4L O w b o o n °G° a °�° ° ao U C. a o L..0 o c v o_ n a y �, m o L V o y ccu_ a a �o W c ro .a t4- -o ° 7CO 0 y U ro _ O 0mO L. 0 6. Yof/1 •ZS O NUO{ - ce,tw V] N o OX Y ci.., U [n Fl. 4- ID pA Fl. V P. Y U lu F" Q N u u UY_ ,? L d' CL U_ Q n m ri 4] E L u w Qy Cn v cG G v v Mu N C Q Y 0 ULq O O+. G] r� •C .n O y p L U v sv 'G ? pyp C o L 0 0 o v Y � u p 0 u i � a .7 v N vi fl v •j Y y w i .y U Cis Q] Vyf .� •.y. � []. Fes. d CL U_ Q n m ri 4] L u w 4� C N C C O O ;n O (6 'ZZ C. . U U L u U v E ct C .� y L aJ c o O •� 00 � u p 0 u i � .� O .7 v N vi fl v •j Y y w i U Cis Q] Vyf .� •.y. � []. Fes. CL U_ Q n m ri T In a v m z m y a nm Zrm m D 3 T 3 SC. 5 o eo w 3 m C _— a 3 n a n O .•r 3 d CD 3 CD W w co O (xro a wLAv� w C w � w rD a F O n' ro ro Ln z z y M '� rt O n 0 n °' C O n C b O c O n Q. O a C n C Tr 0' ;3'b 4n7 m X 7 rD K U4 rOr O Oq bq Co ,='.F n rSr fD -n as 0 CD rS•r ro Ln ro C^D CD ' H O a rD w w Elp b CD 'Ci CD y 0 Q• m D- .0 C y p R x m m CL m CD ry R c a CD Q d _ w C 7= .nT m O O a CLwFQ S nc w a o a. _ -r CD_ oh a• z z z a o a NCL a y C Di 7 � W ((DD roo rnr Ul w O D ro N 6 b 7 rb ro n n eD m rrtD Q- 0- <n -a X -1 m n ['] S m [n n v, w n Q' w[n n O. 7' w n rt n [n (, o O^ p^ i CD 0 CD tin ^"'i Q. O. w m �y w a m [p w w O d °' a o v n n� 7 0 G M z M m vwi A:. UCA [ryD y rD-�"z C o m m ¢, `C day 'b (DD n CE C C m N = Cryi w FT rt 0 O4 y W (D 4 �-M' ro �:3- cOM N - CL n, O 0 Qrt Op 0. Ln wn �`n. rnC � tY D SO D O S o rr y m O (D a Cp -I m ro D M m 0 ro C ryr m O ro S Rt S D G d O -+r N O rt �. C C S, �< ,y.* a. W tr'D m to O. C rt . N W CDD -i -t a C rt Q �. m O n in' r•r C+7 O S ¢, .rp rD N CD ry n rt CD M O ro ry 4. rt n C -� n ro N ro O '6 y rr Cp (D 'b `.rt. W 0 (D '.". p fD D n�. m ❑. N rD :y ry. '3' 4 C17 � p a' i=7 CCDD vi 0, (CD r0•r n't C w `T 'y .0•' rr rt G. w p �_ n rr N �_ M r -r rD N O W ¢' tOn rt O -y (D O S R Ef) a o ZE R o c x�n c w = a o. [n :o (D 0 C Q �• rnD n n rro @ o I0 M 01 y n C m r* m DS •-n 7 w m G CD Q v, ,D ...0'Q rD n O m o m _7 C CDD rRD '(D"j O m ' S R. fn D� '"y O C• O 7 m raD an ¢, C = 7 b0 0, CD. Tw w .tet rryD m w n S R m �• D M.CS z 0 =' S W0 C co LAN a p? ,R,t [ryD C y y a o CcD O w N m n s o o •,, s R c rD S 'G p r ro ) O - y ro G. �n p o rL m �; o � o n Ln -1 L,) S 0 S C m -- �j O C� �. ryq w o Al ro y R Er 0' N rt w C D vi p w p rt LA cn rw•r O. Q. C C .n CL O O o w o a ro ro a x m' ro oa o a -t O n rr •n O a, O rD Vi M o Q. rD fRD , rD rC_+ ro c 'G CQ CL R y rp C' C p rr ' ¢ n P� rD rD °, 7 y a o rD" N ry n ro o� A a wLAv� F O 7 y' N D °' 4n7 R K � Co A w a _ CD -1n m m w a CLwFQ S nc a v _ -r CD C rt ( D C ry NCL a y -I CDCcl O D N m m (D m a (D m ry 7 w m N V) w m w LO C A7 C m O 'CS N n R W ++' o, w =' -- m rtD c n = ;: o (n 7 fl. ID Cn C OQ w C� O a R. x a C a rD C A+ p, C R `5 O -t n G rt x 0•CQ C Gw' H OD n (A �'• (D Ta rD CD n 0 y rt' N w 05 a x t,3 O O O Y n 0 fl. ro R s w m n D `C n CL C 0- w m 0. (4 ka w rw' tiD ry y n CL 7 d rt �� •maycn ¢' 7 (n rt �, ry �*• %( rD C, 0 R -' .Y C. 23 rd W 00 - ^•t � (D z 0 ^o d rnr W b rD p aro Q rDo C O b C/] (D ti 7 ro G a- rD y (D n m m b IV 'G L a 'c 0 r, n a a ry a m C i 60 w rt c' m w c m n 0 P3 O n T m to 3 3 nr °' (CDCD o • w CLwFQ S y _ -r CD C ro m ( D C ry r X. -I CDCcl O D rt T n 7 fD eD m m (D m a (D m ry 7 w m N V) w m w LO C A7 C m O 'CS N n R W ++' o, w =' -- m rtD c n = ;: o (n 7 fl. ID Cn C OQ w C� O a R. x a C a rD C A+ p, C R `5 O -t n G rt x 0•CQ C Gw' H OD n (A �'• (D Ta rD CD n 0 y rt' N w 05 a x t,3 O O O Y n 0 fl. ro R s w m n D `C n CL C 0- w m 0. (4 ka w rw' tiD ry y n CL 7 d rt �� •maycn ¢' 7 (n rt �, ry �*• %( rD C, 0 R -' .Y C. 23 rd W 00 - ^•t � (D z 0 ^o d rnr W b rD p aro Q rDo C O b C/] (D ti 7 ro G a- rD y (D n m m b IV 'G L a 'c 0 r, n a a ry a m C i 60 w rt c' m w c m n 0 P3 O n T m to 3 3 nr � a •.uc °' _ We r-• •ai ." 2 v v ;n ._ v� -y u �: d: � v N N L n ,� .r' ca ,� c p �• i 41 ^ > y C Lrl G Q U C C J M 77 'L' r ^ .--i r Cy L i.: d] "C C V L > q O .� i., U va,.. > U .❑ 4'? .�, R r4 �.-� w N r: .? � .0 Z, v Y Y i ^ Ln Q U ;n rG V O asX ." 4.� ^ R G iC C C i ro C " C u N y C c] c a; O L c., b _ .d G R L -G N.^ c C o 41 L c Y y c Q .V. `--� = !W c .... y c Y ^ r-� 'L v y Y n y E c L a C Q r ❑ U r v ¢ tC O C RR- 'O .c w rc d '-G •G C Q W 4 > Y L -p O rp (C 4J [.7 -G OL L. C Q7 ni r y a L ❑ v7 C G1 N a R y O O [a v v 'C v m C C '" u r _ W d• P 7 Q b rbc ots d v y '•- N C cn C C •C'y,]c >" 4LJ41 U L rC ro �•C C Y U y L y Ql •� O F. C y fG Y ¢75 Q C �• C .- y^r� y U O U y V7 a W Q "u cc O 4-^ cd i. L r- +=. O C N 4. arcu as W :. O •� Q1 i, y W is 4J ,� [6 (6 "6 ro Q7 P C L U fC V7 41 O L ro F y, YDi . .b G O L R rC y L ,n Y C C Y cc F, i. y Z, u' L c + w a m y c a U ra .� w e c� m y ro L¢ C Gt �' C p 'd v Di G �, oj cv ro rc u ❑ �a v, c3 w m q ar ❑' .j y rn sC vu b u v a� C 4 w }' C y O V y L o y 6 ^ L 41 4- Q Vn F- " ro vP❑ ¢ .� u� ai ca ao L °u 3 ¢ a Q c c� y oq. v ra aL w. i. " o y C O C •a •� C aj i s W -U ,� O Co v a '� C A -O c C (Y6 y p C L, C %�• •R v D H J7 C N 'C i ¢ O > O ++ CO E C ro 6 f4 ++ +� y%. L^, U '❑ ❑ C a "— +•I G O 4L Z '� a rc ay v Qi d O {"1 C,' a.Ln .24 a Y L n u== ,--r V] 'O '� '�➢ r L v] ep, C' 3 O C 4- �"'vf Qy4'i v O G7, — �L C c, �' N p d• ?O _OA y W W G, ❑ c9 'C L: D M +., N L +-. P. '� C4 v v O a O 'n , C aj Y 5 ] O w ;z C � CL "C i R Gros .� W a. .G CA sC, p s"' � O c7 rG r En O ate-+ C > 'C7 ro [6 tia., +, ro ZS Lp C 0 P. �' 3 +�+ '4 cy., vi .0 C .0 N v •ca to i •'p t' L N +❑-' F. O v y' u • V Qro1 Q ro N ?' i�: 3 y q0 O w O 7= q d 4J Ql C C y U N t Ql�. Ll '-" C +, L, O U "C P. w ril �' P. p a, a s a� ❑ r° m v a s ;� C -+ oa m o P o �- `� x o v H Q ao u 3 ,. cr7 Q a y ro ri - Q; o bn d b� .� ra , c� Y v a L -cz bb ocn [s a ro] a zs u om �; T ta y -U 4. v r -I p Y❑ y C cu L •� +•� - rcm cu O O as ] ,O, +-' r—+o E f4 `� M c ^� y M w 4=, v � Y y X C LJ L O �... C— .� a5 s. C i=� C y C @S w -� O C d v� v L}q > '6 iv, C Y d Cc r7i O� D ca '' d �• 'G rC v❑ c v C ; Q.. C G� R c rYi1 v � v L'n O b v c 0.0 Q C c .O C[7 f4 D c4 C Law L" Q L U i.. V7 Jya Ci dA G1 L— p U U y B IL U O F. , y 0 y IVEL. W A5 '+ ro P+ O +4 G cpi M w M y �' d i C ai b �' O `n y 0 Gs ¢ m - ra s 0 3 va ¢ a m. Lri G o m a v ¢ H a s ro L, u a d a s _y 4-. ro d v cc v rd y❑ v q W sc°- "ca O v rrj C ry p d L Lv y L3 y O w a v E ro a �n a o a G1 C -� L' •B y, c 'D W U G'. -� C y v R s -i 5 a v .O v N +U- ] y❑ �, lV G a .U, 4 '6 Ln O �n i. U f~4 y fy4 • Gi F. +, CL tom. W i s0. P. mO O O C U ai C V] P. aF 6A •� c-1 p p. bn C .� -0 m 'd m O 41 Ozz G y rYa ^00y 6�i a7 MC �7 c O r ami a L O m N C cn O �y+ i u N �, u 'b w 'R y v ?-, . O. 'C O rz Ln tz ] .0 y cC v, rn t0 R G a a Op. �' v O ro O rC P. ❑ ;4 c u ra .� 4 pP', rG O tC9 y .ro - p v, %o o ro u4 ¢ n 3 co?? Lo- r A ❑ rc .� y 3 C O Y c y C U O! O N •aa. O fn Q Q L p tCC 3 cu ,❑ w v cc v vv q) n• �7. L p .a N as U +�+ ,--i M q SO, w '6 4r v L P. C !6v ❑ C O i ?� �%. C] y C 01 G Q O. N 2r b .O y c y w O = R 7 CO [CC O "I'J-+ u 'D 715 q �/} U Y C� Y L 4. y ro ro y C u C L ro, O 'Q Ln C b.0 ¢ ro v sC. eC sC �% to as y � 6 0. m 4.. -av ] P L = a0 v a v m cn C b cc u 4: v t. at W a OtC v f6 2. O i C 1Ui `� w P+ C '� y p rl ❑ N Q i-, U 3 Y r/] C. Vl ro G 0 ¢ V3 'c L ro W Y C7 n. L m ^ c cq a o y i u O a c G �a�i L y W U .� C -4j Gyri ¢ Q v y fV C .U. H ,� cG Q.7 4-. D1 a i' P R rc ❑+wG+ Ry 'qtR1 c6 'bUa 0cc -cp O O cu v•q 0 X y wrC 'p G Q aj O Ed OP. :3 E P c Co W a6+ O a m YR L CU cc P ro L a C C a LC ra a P o? ❑ u o Ln o a ;n °' o a ca °' w e aui cnV) v ¢a n ;vLri o arc ¢ V� 0 3a �cn0 L7q o L, [!7 ' r L 'b 7� J..� L 6 ro Y c O o [c 'R �' � w0 r � �+ `Jv, 3 U CO ;�', � d y i w y "CS 4i � � O � +�•' O •Q � � u v > O b P ❑D '� n3 }' C i R as ro R `n �- o -c v 0 •� C v' sem. y rp ¢ ¢." O ro v ❑ v Vi P. L �" y ca ` cA '� v F. v c y 62 E C b '� s. y �«. R �+ > .O s. L O C> m +-' O y n u s. ro C COL C y q f P v O C v R v a g% - a) C C U N 4) a .p a' N •� GS UJ �" fc rd O G a -'" ,� ,S: •}, U O O' C •C C > cn Y C > v v v M vi A Y CL .¢' 2r ro V, c6 '-' tQ i G.s O +� , C rG c7. w d .� a '� 0' P. +; v, O c sv, y i b� � PO ru-ti rYG .r v s- cu w c iyn +�-' '� 0 V .0 j 9 C -7' v O. ro aroi .b .❑ .v. ] m C w C O N y ro P F. v y g m q CL y y q F .� .� o., VC, m q U O O w P L L O. O U P U -o O y �-, a y 6] � Lx. K K O d R y u is u O !' CL a E Li cu c � CU m "u a E v y L a, . *i w n a = L O C y0 a v❑i '� ¢moi uy U ti Q w vz c m � LL LA v w z v D x D re rD ; d M n =, b +^ 3 � c am <• = � rD a 3 ro .�. v m — Q 3 D -a n � O 3 ti (D n Oa' �. w 0 �y .O � p d 0 Ln 3 ' h w� vu n' rao w a m °=r 0 w� o^ o "• m o ru a.R ate-, C � .1 o- w (D -- SrA e•t .�. O C .O w ti (D rD L4 R 2-� a m o m w rp w A w A� 'ns N a °-cQ c w CD n C w * �• N e w (n w C 0 G7 ' w y y CQrr O _ = (D rL x. �,''pj A� N 'w4 rt -rA a w I-V M= m N ros m O (s ti ZtnM En rw•' CO R f° fDyy m CL r2 a M ° o t9 m m 'b r7r - ry• (n n O n -h rD w N CL n o o Q• a. z CD a R :a n C w ^C 9 y NVI a w n •z w w y w rcD rD -Gs n p, rt 0 CD 0 fl d m x O. n. O n �. O Oo w n .CL ; (D M' =.• p O rD `C � O C =(D rw-r n �3 rn F 0 rD n oa•'an c7 G. U7 a r•r �- z (D n p rrDDn, ani n w M p, F O D rwi `G y R. ((DD "n'S n fu y N G 0 G W IR ro 0 (n N n (ryD Q' G" rr r4 A (n ro O w ,..� y n n m 0 G �yaf°av�a�� (D Q. w.,, a D n. -s ° rt o 7 C (DA on co rD rt -1 ro n rro C S p w rD rD w o a r 0 0 rDrl) m cn(D❑. w CD w vo rr .-( N ro N w :. R nom' "i Cn p. rL O O rrDD `J a ' rL a• 0 -1 R QQ X ?r vwi m rr N ro 'O ro Ln a p. pMZ n a C � @ CrQ O'n . uq rt n w> (D ro p C M C G (9 Y v, w N 'S n, w n w w 0. G m rL o b y Dni � a a o v '* w Q .S y n (D d a' CD ° CCD a �'* O O 'Y N -wr p•' y C F (D a y rQD�. G C a 0 w to N G^ r�D d phi G a • m a 7 �" A r°o ■ o w Q• a ID V3 z ro n ro m w rD = r w o w rD C p r m w C a w nroi R y MrD rD Dpi i• (D rr— C (� rt rD O� a O. a n a S o w N� (" w ro ru • ¢, a ... N W 0. rD �' D.i w �' T W 7 a• O W a Vroi ••c rt rD 7 ro rD w h Ln CD ro 9 N in' rt a r•' O•' '-S w '� (D 7• 0 rDfu ro [D O Ln 0. rD rD rt nni n Ll a Er F m ro rt D CwCL ro fr—D cn na p yG'Op w m rD a N rD O n M¢ 7(A n S ti c �O n S O. tn .°y R O n .b IN .ny N 0 N a ,..; n CD , -5 z O S G. R* rt rD = — o. a G_ r+ a EL o ., x o ., (D en Mro C R 0 a ¢ ° W w n o C C A' WR. �� X b ro• ° o n, v; `G a' d v, 9L'I m Q .a w ; a R n p n rr n t� ri as R w G a o rQD aroi cD R a '� o ° ° �' rD ro S Hpv Rroi fl rp 0 0 rL O w n m m C. n ro cC > R w _ ID W5. L�7 C�D�J" rD C O 'cy G' 0'4 ^d a 'd a w 0 p .j N G a a• w `T a (D ow4 y a °, 07a m n' M rD ro@ (; o m 0 o rD � E@owm ��CL ID n o ro O N ..i w '•C 7 w `•C 'a vl Ln 0 D R rD(D (D Q y O C cn 0 to w O w. i CD G O =r 0 rD _ rt sn oa' r w b 7 w a G rD �VI w rD ro ry cr .1 a -S G 0 (D N -1 -Ns o l< s rt j o r�o n a' g tiJ[rs� gra a.w rt �� N � n n ro •zs rD 7 b 0 O r0r fl (M rC�+•r��CD 0 ' C n 'G 0 rL 0 O n p� rr O o. a ro (D fl- rD p, a. r+, =� O 0 ,C 'C 0. W 0 0- w CSD N V� 0. A O' ¢ a V CD C• rTr C r w• iD art" n ,n Uq V Al G m Q, w w rD '� V) (D.9 0 n rD a m w -c w N in C. n. G ro n. rD y D p (D p r3 Co C �? Co y m O (n Q4 cn a s C O "1 El 'O A. 0- ro CD 0 r-LDpi O O n w rD u6 Q. -Cl 0 ro (D 0 CL ct. rD Cr rD w a rr (D rw' a• 7 R 2 G~7 Q. w C' W V�• w M y w ro Ln o a rD (D O 7 X- 0, K -0 fi ^roi '� to N .art. O M tL R w , w :7' a PAD ni O k rhD 7q pCq 7 ?°C "0 m Lo R pu w Qq N y W wy C• d ° ro fl- (DrL0ai mgt m=w°a��cR fQ y w 7 S O r -L CD 07ra rt firD 0 ^7 (0 ro n a n Y w [�7 D xa w w w w n n w w w cn w ,; = Al N ro 7 nal. ro 'a �, n O. a O O C. oo G G a 0. ro "d n0. C. a 0. 't7 O' '� (D ~ (A (0.D a 04 (CD y a ox' W rOi' rD N t,3rt o = 7'D w p n m w wCL ,n� nO Gr G `C o• ¢' `C .O a. (D rD rt rD a' tD a= o G X C a ¢, ZL H X(D C w w n (D w ?C• .� a p 004 (D �G7 C7 �• Q. O• a m rhr tn' a �-' r* -'"'�• ((DD rt m w �-1 O w G r cn a r4 ry n C rD � 0 W= 4 K C� � rrt .-; _ y < x (D Ln z �' D H ro wAJ (D K N r 0 (D a w y Cm rrDD0 G w a OLn ro rD b rEllcn L WL GJ i 0 Ln 0 m w C rD a -1 CL0 � R D. Lw v Lq a = X a w (D (D a�l I a a rt C ,..,� rD CL O "� r* y — O. nS G C ro cr (rtD rp N M rG ��„ rrDDD yrw-' ' m ro C O O 'O C rr 0 w rr to�(D V7 '-t'nr'C y N N C t M O 7 rD ` w ro y ci ro a m -s a w rt rD m a (D w r7 C rD W n 8 m O 3 a, M iiw d Q U CU rz 11 -O O -+� U M ] O "' V N a O '' U s; 7 cy 4] '7 3 'r L"; w U i cC ., 75 ajG7 ^ y� o O L n O Ql q O U cn as C v C d' w y ti L- GS Q CA .O V V c4- E •' r O] O C O J O sem, rG to O :G +� Y o j Q J Y v Y Q }•' �' L; GJ GJ U L '� rl GJ r''. y •V V] r7 rL"• N + cc [s U G Y b A rG -; G� + 4a ro y " u rQ .� y G y bi K] GJ '9 +�-• y vs Q�j G O .G to ro p ti `•^� N •U V ? Y in v, iG .. - A GJ T .O G N aa+ O L V fA y cc ] .0 A w '� +� vGi .ta i p .^ 'G7 s, C y ca y O .. r '- a. O u� b v vi iJ r6 u [GC M ] O G J7 a Q sV, C7 i 41 '•J UU M • � m v m Y `m v� L • .^� ,� .� _ j �' 4- L� Y �y 7J •� Y O Y U¢ G ':- ro y .� 7n D vO - ro tC Y V '-'- 4y u' �.. V v 'C p i O y Q oL am. as G ym, •�.--• V i C v, cc O 4•+ O m O d, O .O v G V wv. p Y p O '.� 'Y V 'O v, Y YG 41 O 2r cl — EO Y "� ro j y CC L E- GJ M OmL. y= W U y a) O u O C G L .b ;- tc c ''' v v5 ,•�,, V O O p �_ m] Y }O', w GJ ? -fl rJ C v GJ `� QJ O' G1 (6 y U •° A �' G �_ j C �+ O ro cn ] ryc U ] C Q L ,�., cc v L ro GJ Ox q' r,7 .b i+ L •� 4-' raC;u .�.. i P-, ] ^ A •� u L '° `.� u U Qi L •v. rG s. ° V O G1 p ro m " L i C o f o (nFE o a V). a' Gxi c 0 3 G 3 ro4-, °u °J roU °U 0 Q, ocz-s3 r r� �, L � R. O oL ro o A L L YO U Y O .� r- 0G .> a m C L �' Ln a%, d i i-. m O GJ N } ra P +-' •O = G R' •� u p] O N `z G G v — a% f4 e� iC. p„ o y 'O C v O u G o m [� M, sii O 6y C GJ v ++ m Ln �' y ur N cd 7 m JL5 ..O .� Z a: m rn X a7 a� G F. is "'-' sy. M ¢, GLS %�� t]. m ° `.--, M c4 O .O G E a G L ], �• a) �, .0 [ri 7 y a d m° B c' N m cn 'B G! d` �., tti N Otu typ ro S Gy A u ro G V) O. v c L E cv o A �• +� y ta0 to m u v y t o O� O N Qy m] G� m C '-' m tJ6.�• E n �+ m r, .� A C 4) p v d +� u G S4 su, E '� H cd 0., YO 'b 6 '� y 'G ? Y u O '� of ] G �,, cG 'G ^ ..-. ] H C u tv :p rt p ° y. v v v w c° o a a� m r Y w a v x ro a v oa -o ro ° Ga v ° o a N" � �s y. ro ro as .n x Gs .0 �' o cLa ami -° b o cn �_ i a o. o•rd m •u °3 a a :0 3 v 3 a> 0� E °+�' Q u E °�' ❑ n0 C. o^ ai '°° o N C ?° U 0 3 ro ro cac Q u. o CL a .y 3 V) ro EA7� UV� ro L¢ Vr N v uZ�¢ ¢ rG L V7 ro¢ a1, row. .. m ]i c C Y GJ W V G Ln G m a: U L O ¢' v O bc oro � Ya�roroo •�� rz +� s ], P,• �3�7a,a°o w o" U L V; m E v Q O a� C ai cu G7 A n aj O `� _� w n O u y .n d W V to C m y L]. 4, +-+ 'Y w 0 m O s- � v O O -t3 m u m V C Qmj qD cn ro G) t o r0 a O A G) m� rG O, � H O A u ..O 0 al. O C O v fl. O Y E y O. "C C o C O G] w -0 cn [a LO o G 7 G� E c h O G -O fn y m "" ¢ ca 41 ro E O d° E ro E y y G] Oi O C rG C A bb C •u C C A v G i6 a L O '� G Q. i d' ] O hm0 L d Q. O O �" L G1 N - w. ro CL)m a a �a u aroi E o G is �� o° c4 "' &� L o � u Y E a v ° °mcn o >Qn ° °� 3 ¢ o a3 °_' mw o a cl t.) fV4 VSm. v VI (� rtl +�41 C y w. 4-. O 47 v [C 42 L G Y O aG.+ G F O C y L v C ] u] a5 m 7 hl)y Y > •>✓ a vi !a. �+, 7 cn.0 cd O v b vOi m E A GS ro C .O L GLS +-' O m ~O M b ° cGi V L y a4 C a b G r �, N Q. O r7 A Q.. L a C d. 0. w O ro C 0 vii vVi ]� ,-i 'D Q •C+ r" Xa�-� L A i]'. ` u g N 0 t xiu C vl N p u Y v LA O C O rtl +-' L O to *'' cn Ga a m tm U A Y N A, - o CJ M Ln a1. O y L C 0 cC G Ln 'q Y E v t4 C t4 y L G G v cam. y 0 ay U u o 'zz G C v, ] O] rG O G m U ^ O L1' ... ] Q, Y U G L tC v ro O Ga • QOi E .a �Gl N f�E C O O •• V U �,iY^C N Y -ro y A Gi Y sy„ �' d o G ]y m G �u E u v E cv v °; 4 O p C E C QJ u ." �. "Ci fl 6._ G .E N w C ''' P P. q a4 G .•,.. 7 u °' o n. O %," C .,N QJ W 0 r a v L [� E �C i o C cc ti a V3 v u a. u w m cn M n vn ro Q n. ii v7, � w°; v iv L Ln u N YO u C m u ,L-. 0 w _ v G bGA E V? wm. m ro V m tx O c!i ro u L a O +, w L y .0 V v c�.. m m z. u ] v m q �C v rob C w x Q. G+. w O v U n O n ¢' k E tR Qj a m '� v c o ro 3 cY 0 3 s°'. an % L o •r^ L o°'n .0 C y '� Ln p, C rG '� s. '6 LU G vi G '�$ L, O F, Qy O rM 'G m ro y vi V3 JCR u N Sm-. L �"" O iv 0 � p ro a7. •y�'.� tGA y ci 7Z y °" A-, m � + ^O 'O .O =° a G ro 'G req T. ❑. 3 Q ra aL ro GY' [Z oM r- `m ,o m Y° an m C cn C C +� v GJ ro C L t••' O s. m O of N •p Q E G b y .0 .0 v p u sm. O 4� 4 F u rc a a rC d w O u OL V T O ri O� E cca a� Q O❑=� O o 4 b m w t1A QJ o s g ° o 'a tLL p 4; A a is a O O �Ln 'rC rn 3 °n m. V y ], y C Y a �- °° ro o G ro m u Q, C m $ +; y+ O n .� L Q Gro m .E L C p -O C wOi E+ F ruG y tC .x _in ru .0 ro = O y `Q v y ,� OWro rGr ,O C o 0.w 4 .� ro u A o Ln o N `') U L G1 m 6, L n. N o ''~j rd i y V7 v Q m sp.• L L].. CL.1 nLU v N R. aGin° B o ra n u 3 m G cLc :+��p G% vi V p L .G .0 y 'Q EO C E '� Y cu E ax a C u A y a 3 �'.��°� a 5.� a �.� ° ° c°n.G a ° ° aw° E'a ami r m B Fv is scoo 3 = °. '4= 'o a b o❑ ro v ° a q L, VtOb o G L a ro .0 L 3 yLl Q m ro ro cGn O b cn C L G5 O V E U L h Gr b y rtl Yv, 7 Q, - v b 4i U N O 0 gi O m •� "G n Y 0] L .� GA •� ¢ y 7 it t3 G u G v NQS E py ro] E +p-' +o-' N ¢' V3 m Ln ° ro a A m o c a m C a L v °' G' 3 Y v u �, ro m G v a ar °- m a w Lu .� G •x ? rG O� .2 bA u y= O R d m a c n a oCz + a G U C13W U U = p u N u a a E ro a �a c � ro � y cn v a E Gl V ,u„ y T C :t-, a I 4, m O u W V) E L cn Eo a o m ro u w v 0.' U Q'I r Ln A a Q 6 z M � � C ul . 4. im i A W. Ol � Z v D b � w m _ } D h rn { C _. m f�0 CL � K 7 3 m m .�+ 3 a C — a 3 D t 01 0 Q O n tyn C O Q a 3 O. .3- N r�F Al 91 CI1 fl7 C m n in rD rr a rCo 6 mrC G ('' �, ^ ai ,� cao J .4 ME [fq -1 m G — O. m C �. �' A < Q- p m rt> m w 0 Oq m C ro or = a v ? ri ego o �. w a. aCD� su ..+ K �, N m a CD r�r y C � O m G m CCD 'A .ti o u' nroi rL R CD LA � 'rD! � m � o� m e o �un cn @ x m m � � �rnp h n v m co ro rt ycn 'O w Q ua w �> L coo w a° a fo rza m nni ro a o ro ro mCA A �. smn e� N D m rw�r fCD Ln O Ln CD N Q C� � � O �C ro O- ru m a R N r7p m y A Ln rD Q � n as m t9 W eD �' 4a eD > w a rn w Q � 0Q IQ -n. w a e W o � Nml O Ln fu rCp � m o n ro r* C [n m L/1 L.� m m y A rr C � a v . m C R m � w C m o a rt CA� o D b ro N w o w � N o r im i A W. E E 7 :•i v CL m U m U a) T J d fes. � � y � � CFf L i � C d C y � a � � G/1 v L cu � Q L cw SiJ m d U aJ CC L � W G CF-, Gn R. i � O � N Gv i G cu m CL a Un O � cu � L ^4 � CZ V a a� �c v b u aJ C4 L 6. 1 co G ar G 0 � Y � � N G � � � d H (t w c6 Lh W tt3 U � � a a � � � U Q N v C � a G C G o � � LJ7 L7 ti U 4} y u7 'o m C k C 4] U SC rl � a 3 rtm c d y y w a) a b a o o a c o aj y v b '9 u o L� ` � o a cu O v G m 3 c6 .L ^a in G Q 4f •0. C i ^O O d v C o ,� d �, y C ,u C CO U O 0 rC 'o ro ti ro •ruif C j'd k C E M W W, s aYi •❑ C O tL L 4+ G a pj} o �, s w y u c aj L �y O .� a Z G m o- C sn y Y a s !~ Y N - L O 'o v} Ln av" +••i G pp ,"' •3 y y O i' O C ?. •.+ .� y cC [tl G ti YV^1 E -0'6' aJ L G L ^ o L -C .��. fE C �' m -C as " W CU rLa a.1 o kV•� a v '� o 3" u '� .o oGa o C y o°> u tx m y y ren aoi ro aLi a o ULD v u .�C al O a0.i O Cl v 7 G O `� v a ra G v tG E a -,'' 3 C v O C 3 O O 'A v un3 L b y a Cz] �, a +� a U V D y L (Uci D cu n r1 d' R V m 3 r A A -3 70 CD rD rD 0 n I* n R a G C. O p- W a 'Q 'Q �' N 2 i '� �' a -3 a Q- O 0 C. Ci ^ w -q LS p 'G p 'a n rt m m n O �• `•i p `< O �• ^+ CD 'J' ..j �••� O c4 ,7 a> ?C 0.1 a < m `0 0 n K 0 0 W O rt C R. G .O 0 CD CD rt CD G as Ua .c n m m `C N y' `C N [7 m rD 'G '+ n p rC 0 G n n A n n ro rr n �. �" 0 o c9 0- w N rD S S Z. rD -Y O S r d "I G n -s d S rryD C, m O rt S ro O o .«�� .y a> 7 t i rt C ro >C �' rD R. rD 0 r�F N cp a A� r�D r��h O .� CYO �- m .ny "`��' rn y A ro r�r .my �. (y0 (t rD [�6 fly • C rn rn �* C ¢' d w vt rt < C {L w • .p iS' m �D �• m S =. m m ..p G' O C. 4. rt R p = m O N S m G 0 0 y 0. a R 0C. m _ rD rC] A C -0 00' G my `C K m v Ln W R m n R 7 R p ' m v, C ti 6 'b i a1 ro N ani d ? ro 0 CL [D �� = i co m G p N° 0 m o o `U ° M rt " ro< R [7D 'mi fl y: -rEL W,_, a y rD ro A D . o C-Da7 'v 9G] W ~ fDD p, ems+ ?' a '3' R G- r~R--- *' 7 �' i � .nrt. w B o ¢; �` 0. n, 5- reo r°I-L o. CD o m En a a a vi rD 0 a , @ ro m a mti fl. 0 a = m CD CL Ul rc a m arAE� �A f w r w !D@ w' °' rD . `c , D J� -ns W" m SD = O sn' O m v' ro r�D 0 m -+, O rt Q. rl (tiG 1C m rD E, a4 "= w m � = M - 0 w - � �+ m �. N y O G ,O "` m o Q, m 23 0 .1 m m a' = C '� O of � � ❑ '� 0rD m C rL a rD O O C rte+ @ O m O' ti •-- 0 "U R "0 C7 .� C a a. CD m rD m 0 10 w G rGr v rt v 0 m m� .O„ V D y [n -3 C rD CD p p� 0 a m CD C p „ �- O y `C 4� p 0 � s CD R R y •`S Q p O -h G m n rD CDa m -•i Su C C w�6n� m m C'C C.vSR O' .roS � o• G � �' r9 °Y ro a as rD o as m �* z G° vD w C p OS ro M rD W W C. C W R ',•J m JQ rD •b p d m 0 'Y N rt DD C G m 7 p N m 9 `C m¢. CD G CCD M °, _• rD ca � a PL 11-, W z`C o �' o CDD C. '0 ..fl -f is T rD m `' -S m Vi• CD cD o rD r T m m" rt 9ma o � -ICL � rD a w ° w Z ~m CCD d =•j rt C. a CD rD C w rD rLA _ _ cr C� Ra a C ~y m w 5 w CM (D Gm w Q C 0 cr rte+ c07 ^4 ro C ro O 7 �n rL le y m arm C- —"a C• N -0 o EA x w h, '-1 rD 00 -9 n .1 W rL -cj oip m ° p' rp rD r, wa 7 rD rt m ru In dq N rD rL �dn dr7 rD r6 '••r rD vi O M rL m 0- o rD d o 0 W CD G CD w rt 0 a C D r Uri G p, o ,7 C ?. y mD m 1Sm y ¢ 0 . 7 r r �- CCP p 0" m CY=O 'CJ O a r'•Y S R � a N ID ru rD C' rn y C7 w C.`Q C7 m p m o -1 � p rp CD R 67 H, C cr rD a- 7 c CD p m H' 5 ^p ami ;n -n CRD C. 'O m y' m El m 0 o rn O S of m C (n R o pm °� .20 n Dy' a a. o ami IvrD °a CA o CD G CD + m,— n 0 C cnrD 1 o m C ryr w m y m 'C Q D �' r7Ln r rr R Lei dq nl 0' m `+ b w C R N ❑ H m (D 4] i "y 0 Vf A 4 rCD G R CCD O y Li ::r w rD W ~ of CL I rp C w m m C, rD ^s x. N aLq mi Lm 7" a rDn b = p o= m m V, Lon i a, s- W �K rD 0 G' a C .y Vlcu Ln eD W tirL �, rD < aCD a'7Lr~D C O" ~ N U �. ro a G y .0 C m C T O- C '•y Dl 0. G 9 V m c, a CD I r~D '?� m CL .. m Q m G ! C7 CD a1 O r�•r -1 C rt n S N �' W 0 n x. "..!' r"0 RJ n rD r4 0' .r rD ? rD ~ N 0 ro 0 rDrt D C_ 7 To O y ro GID Lq ti p a G 0 n R n ro G ro9 w ro < rRD Q ti y aro y < a o CD p o a o `' x o 0' rt G !. o m vs ro _ _ y C Gi w rr CL .r w" `G cr m = — a a' Ot mr Ln rt CD 0 rD C h ro ro rnc CL crN < a rt ,� O a7 rD 0 m Gy O ro 0 a: 0 4 nl CD a r 0 r 0 im a W C'o w Q U fC N CU 'a L C7 co G G U CD O 6m1 V1 V7 +•• :] �' U rC y r L n u v G y •� .b _ C U Ln U Y r r, v E r G u ro O M u� G O ^. U G G tj V L ti-. Q v V G b c b a a w u U U u. a ;n Ln n ro+� U rL y :il ... � 4-. a [C c;; V) ter, � y U "" 4ra t4 d Q U w .� .� CA U Qroj SC I-, N � ^d i. C7 to L+ 0.Y � � Ifl N ••� ++ {p � psa v7 6. X V3 Ol p 9 � CU 0 C n X x} y w a r- w b y -t a i.. ❑ tro _ Ln v o C u N U LLJ Q> p G I.U. "Usem'.. ❑ n c d .�•� '"-'"'i \O (b U y ❑ .0 Q7 '� i-+ u L E rl a {ll {vr°ir 3 El -S ° In 3 3� t4 L �•-' ro � ? y v CU Q bnr y ro Ln¢ sc v u Y 3 a❑ R r� a u v m ro m o o a� L a a' bo 3 m ¢ a �, m te �' .+ y N M C m ., N U v aN G (�9 U U CV ro G U V C _� iU. N0J [b O O cti tC U G twr ❑ ro a� C C v sU.. Cy i6 O 5U-� ro uEn oDd n n ro o4rl vy c u ❑0 E N Y G U y 3 ❑ A Epl 4, m� A +, a CU m c i v +-, U ❑ c an 3 Q Lo) rC .0 Gid cu M 6. ¢. ro N r -I q U Ld N U U V U M CU z v v w L) CD o a E ELU amG s'b a�= a�L n �� QQy V a �-3 Q3u�❑��3 33t)LD C G ro r L V CU < C ro J 6. 6� v -p W w ,C7ao, GA a, sC. V 41 qy ? P u � -a cn C +� � _ s, w ro ❑ ¢ ¢ a ro y tZ y - a -t °'bb U b V U -07 U Rl CG L f4 ,rl >; cue O •= m o ai m m v aroi E m N vai vU ro V) -C G U QSAy h f4 w ?• N O '� r. yU_, � Oi O O ❑ ❑ Gi. 4-1 Li 4bi o o F rn n c v in G a. O u � CJ ❑ O d' � V7 u D n' vUi C i ^ r, V] •r �-. O fA � ro +-' *i 41 'Q � 'n --t vai G C 'r" [1EnV U ra a. a cUi� O v aD rC rUG vCi ro ajo 6 ❑ u �. ro °' C v _E ro rc c o C rCa m 6. a K v G 3 U U G ro K d >, a u .0 o ra¢ .E U ro u 4� .> h ca 6 y a ca' L 5 .� ,� ,� v y 0.. FZ .0 m 9E LU•' 1 ❑ C O Z Qi 4+ U cn +� U E"' U Vl cn cn U a u 7.1 [G �'CD i..� cr, 3 f,J = L V N N W �. ❑ 5.+ G Y U L V] ro V7 ro U U N C�.7 bL Q w '~ L. Y U Z Y Q7 -CD ¢ G 3 Cil U N ❑ Vn CO i Mr i "M r dV}1 '❑ L C aj dD .n U .> L O Ln❑ cC U - '❑ L V] 'Zi S" 7 Q, �' [n a •p V 9J "� C R. C a3i ri s. C 7r. �, s�'.• C m"G ❑ C� v ca u v' c OU z cu M w ca un Gyl � � O � � � � � O ❑ ,� tj ro c� ° U Q a E U V a � C C � v G a E V > C * I Y iv ti �+-• � � ar � a •� c E �, v a E Q u C4 W 7 � z N City of Renton Chapter 1. Summary 1.6 Summary of Mitigation Measures Table 1-2 provides a summary of mitigation measures proposed in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS- or Chapter 3 ofthk-Eingl EIS to reduce identified impacts. These measures are in addition to applicable federal, state, and local regulations and commitments that are described in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS. Unless otherwise stated, the mitigation measures apply to all studied alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact5tatement 1-47 ICF 593.1D C N 1" Ql Z ca w U D O w [a] N r -t O � M - p L •� � �I ❑ �: � -D a V Q - 3 W � � 0D VVC E V ❑ 'D Q (A D r- ON D C C +•--' U V w rG C s0, ro 'Daf U ibA i D d D w U 0 A ❑ O p s, C CL L O n in U v vYi +`. 0 a c Cm p o °' ?, O� �• o W o � ul 7C to 7 ra cro G 6.V V a+ U .� x + iw/i rA ❑ [D ❑ co w i Q D •fC L [9bi CUG C U O - u ❑co ❑ •� O 1.. T}T}T}V co=� Cc +-+V5 w CU z. . O ❑ V p rC U Q In In v7 ¢ iLn O = uro O L '� u vwi w a 0 -C u o w o u m a o o w s Lntja _ ❑ O ❑ w p •b •C C C i6 G w C "' a u 7 u ❑ sw. t7 aJ IC-• b.D -O ❑ CD rz D+� v y i q ,a vw ❑ D O r w 7 ¢-cla� G ', tLc C3 'n w �' ❑ � C ..0 �' .0 •C 7r '� a 7 Ln v� D O 4. 4 LQ S4 w w b� 7 w hroq V] i C P. • � 'in Q. m • • • a O Qj w y y Op O � C7 V) ai u rra {n - D C a C7 v w ¢ V V CJ N .--I O u w L �S [,i w N U ?•, M �" f4 w L ra w U w V GO O w ,..' FD ❑ a -- b w v Q C a ea N p s u +-' a ❑. p aJ ..L7 �- U �+ w Q' w C v, ro to O C •y C G d w C ern C z. C cW v b 7l 1 "7 L j "a O >, � r�7 � i' O � O � C❑ O E -0 y ro � D �bD cn w d a ��j v07 '� v a o� v L O ^a "y ❑ ..+ 0 C .a p' o 'O -, tn U O G' C y .Q rC ro G, C7, zw. C7 to w cn r�C O ro �• M F x U r.:ry 'O =G ro �' C ro `'' U `""'.~. v O ca C �' C7 O y -O y D w 0 ++ C '� Q C w o o m y �«`�"", K o. W a w � w o as w O O O y y bio rz C +, 4 u=" M O. N L y �• ❑ w rl n � Gui D O ,O C ci Or G. D �' :� b Vj L• L q L •L V Eai > d w O y C •y a •� a p .� C "C5 G v O •O `� OL O N v d P. 7 w D Q; D f✓ 0b . b v L in w 'q vi w ca v m CCT�❑ v y p W •U C y a> ra L w C to w C w ,, u H •� a' c D CL L" CL i]. x w cLi CJ v u u 3 o � m y c o •Y o _ ,, i. "TZ;A a o C i v �' a f3. �. .� y ro D d 7 �'. .^O, •�. '� �. 7 �3 CN4. .� cu w w Q3 w w C c w G i CC G ccaa y y Lw y U v y B o u O v ti o c rCb'o V r�C rt °1 y w O w O �, 0. +� ❑ w D y Q h y LM y 0 O i C O y v, i p w r C� .b C DA q C N C O S]. O q .Od�i f j U' v0i ro '� f� O C 0 Ln rn ❑ D +-' w U C dA C N C ? C O 71 a °� w c,� o y 0. � C.7 �_ �� w i d B L 0 rCG n❑ ,�, _ .� .� d o N P; r -O, C •u '3 3 m �;��w o ro ° o ❑tn o ^ �' o u° w Ed bD O u L O O w a aw. C -0 O w v0 C i� q ti u C C i� C C w al _C "� v ra w •y v D, w �• cn •L7 a.+ U5 v j D iG a�0j Q G r L C O u L cn D w b0 C C a L C C G 7 V w G v` C L w O ami � � G 4 ❑ 7 b d aroi R cC D C ZU w w ra w a✓ C p +w+ 4 w a d p •7 •� .O � ,b u p -� 'O m u `C C Li - a •� O is C G) i; C C yr ❑" a 'O O ..0 C En G rd w -❑ C w 7 U O 0> y p C C� q O to O D C w w d v r =ti o '"' C ,n at C L w V= rtl C +� o, C w C ca L w 3 w 3 ❑ b ❑ u 0 3 m vi -az v yD -u C 'C •� cn ai ❑ s. C +� m o �w q a L �, o c cc o n ro o v aDi ❑ i3 ❑ C w cC L ,� •7 R. ^C u p w "' ,., D -� a cn C y .w w •y hA ptA a 'ir. C w 0 C '❑ ❑" W L �' E o °' n ra a W SG w w w an w m cad La a a C❑ c y •� - - 3 w n U .. o c a 4�i w ro y u u a o C� o m c cr p w C.. rNa ^C �, 4 ai C L ❑ c `� c❑ as C C ?, V wC, w Q -'T' .o ..0 tn D H a E v oy "w ro w w uai w 0. ac E-- V =- O r E^ • • • • • w bLay U w z ❑�"w Dw oC w u ❑ E . c m a, a E � 7 L? E w E CL U w a ma S. Q d w N � � In u N cn O r -r &;, rt n y 9 n Z r� rt rt P- W n a ai C C' m O O O C O m ro O m W 'C m ^+ O �* O• d m �'O a• `•I as O ro C• U� ro n. yr n z rr ro ¢ M 'd C rt w O¢ G G v w 'K g Q C@ 0 rt ro n 'Y rt O rt -' C as a+ m P m �' w m 'a P O m w �' 67 b R z m y 'b C ' =• C m° rJ m C ¢• O A C .rt.- rt m rD m M W rD rD "'*+ rt m r�nr y rD .'�.! n @ m - = nD w a �. C 'C 'd m m 0 y rw+r<D 7 '� ¢, crtn � � � [ .°-n Er ro¢ O n m G CL d d O '_*. w ,..* ff3D 7 m C M O rD rt w `C ro r+ m G. � rD W m • O C n rD 'C pq v .S rD p, a''C 'q a. d' C]. n a n• a P C^ C � w rt M. y -r G rD M a' m W m m n ro m M a as 4 m O O c n 'a s ""' ro rD 4 7 7 r4 7 d CL 6 y rr C?- -s y `� ro m M .,, > G n G v�ni 6' ''�' ro rD rD G,. r .' ra+ a n -� �. r a a C O. -ms �• ,..� O 1� rt pq a w Q n n r ;n 'd n w r7 ro n rt •'s w ,1 O rD O `* ° ro m m C r -r C< •_ n y ..S a' a m ^y rt `+ ro ro n w .O p G �s rt n a A� 0 G ro ru .y p 4 m w• �' 'yG w �, v, O¢ O a� a C C a O z a a G ro -zi,r_,r m O� ,� w G rt C M� rD � O. F rt O O A� 0 m ¢. Q C C C ti_ O ro n ry CD M. `" y rt nai � -� o o' . <• a. n ro ?T C -r -s y m ,< P a <' '� O a •C = C m �• eD ro r•' r -r m C »� rC-r ro ^s P O rt r9 n y. vi C ro r¢D tD O to rnr" m '-? m [n G L 7 rD m ❑. M a' ro rrtD G :�' O W C ry' �. SAS {rp• rt y rD ar Olq' O do r"D O d C G. G G c�D n n C y m G n o ?, .r �+ 7 v m w rD p, m 7 Y rwr a v, 'q CD: < M rD ro fl. --tn C E = �< (A -mr rw-r 'U Ort 7nC C '� C m a Q m CL O m a P r9 Oq m R� a ,� r•' w C ai C' rt m ai n �s C q- C: n m G ro< ui m O C a j ro rw+ bq G _� C ro P C C p o m C7 R v O 'y !' Q a O P 'nr y G m_ @ M D '� a rs G rP+ rt C a 'm'i P f<D rr m �_ a ro rD C P _r<D O r.) m E m R" F M w rt •a m% 'O `d V E3� r'D � n� > Oq C n m� m 'Cc Ci "'0 � � m rD G ¢- ro .� < -mss < Q 0.i '.''1 �5rts O Q 'P b R7 Q �• m h W. �."7n a UG O m 7 Al 'i faD _Y, S7: a• ro fl- _. „"^„ a rt •s m C C ¢~ y O rr • 'o p q G p G v p b ,nj rr• CD ° rr y a: ro p, Q• rD m C '� G 7 y '� ? C' (D G — ELm CUO' rw�•t• ^' P CL rt w O M G `Y LA r+w ID �. a fl, o � '•i w C "j .�.� ra+ C �? [D ¢ C �*• pPq 2 ,q '6 O ro .t ro C CD C 'C P n ^cy a �rq7 ¢ cnI'D P ¢. `C rr G7 'G rP•r m r% CL Orti ^.� n '-� ro .a .y A' 'C 4 ¢ ^T �' ro rD N `C C o.� O" 'Q O y C `."' C •°-n m r�o �• `C ro rD r'OD 7 N rt @ L C ra m '= n m P `'" -� .,, m .y �• n) IT 'G ;.*. "� OrtT w N P T O. Z ro 0 O" D ,Q Q• ,mC.r M rt z ro n M ,� fwwD O twrt9 a`i n' ro ¢' O. O,.•''z C p• ro p y `C O 7 a' w w vi �. ro rt ro m ¢ r+ v, rw•r ro �' m H -9 w n. F� m q C✓ vrti �0 my � Q; C M rD fl ' � � R `< rrb rD m rp a rn Z m C re rn •-Y •* CL O G ro n CD r? a D� C] 6mi z W �' r ^ P ro rr rar �. p, Ln UQ O m G v • a -r (rtD rGj o O D C _, rD y @ ro _ 0'4 O a m m m Al m n m -"'. .b w Cy cCn o CI- m rp CL n U) ra•' w? y Cs rt n -� m n a eD '° n L ro - rn C W yr m z d Q m O aT a a . U4 da C W m= ? y O a m ro n C= rCD G ¢ n (D "� O. DO n rD 'd �; ro rt -+, r+ rt O �' ro 7 -s C' O ,� ;'S' 0, rJ w rr ¢• y C- P z n CZ q y O 't ,� O ^m^y� t9 7 to O G rt q d C, m C T d4 rt ro n rr 'G `+ m a da ro ?�. P a C rr G -i rp O CL S 'q -� O w -+ .b N w 'd G C '*s 7 C m p n m UQ rt m ro Q O m cn' C ! G w ro y n't m m m 2 at 7 O w w n C a" O r¢D r~D 0 ro a ro r¢D w 'd UGG In fD w < c w ','� r*, m O rp w x '""+ = ro rt y y a7 '*a D m as rD G n m 7 w n r r a G P r r O rr `C ro n rt C ro C1. a C� ° Uq <_ ° h° < a w o y o :� 7 n m ro m oa ° cy O rD �, n ry ro w D� r•r .Gy a ro O 7r OrC•r D w y '� • Q rt R rt r`D o y m G rro+ -Ct Cr ro trte C 'Y O n O ro a O °C, _ O w ro C rD m m _. 'r N G ro p '6 r+ ro W n a rD O Oq 7 C ro D. O ry N a ro Di O• .y rD a rr M Q. ¢'G rt ¢' rD r' n a W m "' m y �_ O G mal G 'C O 'd w n0 '� rt rr 9] C m D "j ~O �+ G 'b 'rJ 6 1. ro1 rL O OG O rwi C]. • ra-' a "mss -� ro�. O b y !0D "„ n Y,ro LL m ti On m a G m n y d P• P C O M C O (DM w r+ �. h ro(D= (Dv m -1 .nOrt C rDa�i 6 a' �• Ln C 'C C� m o m y o o < n ro m a= n 7 °a o ro R¢ �, CS a o y rD (D °. 'r m y d C m a7 G ro , P C G¢ v G B m a y -z C A� ❑ a r. o d w o w P 3 -, -: a o y a D t. r- ro r, C us m d❑ S4 a s r+ G b m C]. d ..r C m �' rD m or d 'fl Ort ,Y ,.� a¢ w =� X61 _�' 6 M O m � W m e Q. O %[ ° N I'Dp. a' d a �. ^mi @ - P n n O G A 4 w•' CDD m K o 'rJ :;, y Q m ,i • a 4 m as v �. rD @ w O i CL N G `C O Q a s ,O„ O w 'a C ' rr 0 Y G m raD a ro y Ln Drt m rD rD r�•r rt C" -•*s ID r-_� a '� p, ?� ¢ G w rCD a3 m vwi 'd m �' p d fD -�+, ¢- m n 7 a 7 O ro '+ N R rr m R 'a _� ryr_: CL ro C �' Z m� ° rD vyi n • n� [D rD m m n C P '+ G "d 7 N P n aj n y Qq r°r 7 'CS rt N C ran n C 4 ] a: {gyp rD CD arr„ :3 r. O _� 7 m y ''* R' CL •� m •rD m ro C rt '+ d C = o� 0 o p n =7 N 7 w rD a' as 0 7 w y r+ rD -s a (D C a �, m ro a Cs a' l w I CA a d •- 1. C ti -s w a C e�9 n C C CL T C y rD C r+ ,9 Q O �' ro CDD C. !• rt 0 n C m C C Q m ra 7 rD w W -� CnD N w IDD a i CL r~D C (DD o CL ct a� 0 rL w y G n _ m -9 o �' P o' - p. ;� M to o C CL 51.°Oas �. s w w" m�j L mre ri MC rD G C C CT ti O' a• C 5 w g < a -aro 'd ;: m-1 m IT w rD _m 15 6 CL97 CD M rrDD n• C C • N rD7 .a-' •-h C rrtp ,war Vmi y rD 'Z p" y '� 91 G., rt rD W Yl n 'a O 'ti O A- o' 's m -mn m n _CD umryO- :a rtw z M Q ru W C �• rt (b D p, rD 'Y 7 p C ❑. ,�' w Oy rD m w -n D m fly m m tn ro p CD a y _vai rao CD tj m O m Q q rn ra ro rt -s C C Q ro .ar O rt O •s d Cr tU C C ry "O G y ° ._ ° m rD rD Cr°•r • ° rD .y ro m C C w• san x '," m ry' ro o rt .S as ¢ q V)C a rD m ro .�. y' rD .. W y CD p' Ali rroD O C 'R m ryo rtLn 0- m a m n v ° C 7 -a •-s a ^n F ^t �. rt rD C w Ll P ❑? y a m n -t -(D C rD P a m m ro rr Ans w ami � e+ O w n '� C m �s m O y L m r -sIT rw-r •-h t� Q' w O rr r�D w `..S 0 m ^t f<¢6 CL n. N vi (D M O. m' M a ra O > d m Q y 711 M O o• O G rD m .y ra•' kn CDD O Qy fro] rte-' ?� m EA G `�' 7 Cl. ra+ m �' O- ro ro m y a s o In ry w M Ort � � M 2 w ti O � y^ ro as rip ••a rD O rp � � Q � a 0 eb m m Da rG' rY n C r~D < v 0.[no O. rD C n ro m ti _ m ro an M G w cr D a > ^. p r9 � n c w 'G -vrt d. x QC � P C .y m In 0 �' ro 14 tn In m � b ro _ rD r V, w yr C•' O O n I o. 7 Q. � ro n 0 m r, v a) r4 cr 'd ro d o � c ro � C ° a CL (DD -j d m -s va ,O'S O ro � ' � P G w d b m a, m O '3 W q ro SD CD n a ❑• .7 N .a Cc y � O G m n. IV E E vi a v P. u ^ a a c. a m -C bA Ln a 0 0 V V a y C a � to co a a y 6. a m Ot3) LnS`4 ro p Gj .O M r L � +� fE L a .E v 6. O L, y ? i'Q a O a b o y cc G dy 4) C Q V C .O C Ln c,.. U C y q y u> w a a -p E y a L Sa. a L CS 3 � - � O V3 a C O a o rn � C N rCtl O 't7 t15 u V3 M O r° N Ia- a bA is a w w O L •� � O u O GA F u u ,� a E Y •0 CU a ate., i W cu Ln d C C O — 7;1 O .�z L- C M 0. s.0. • • Ln L � O O U L- CD •r �C o a ; * Y a {„ a o U 7 U E .Y b a ai -CS a G Y � Vi •b L i. q L O ❑ cc .; a .E Y ? G co -C a y v?a? 4 7 � }i a 'Y L p., u ro W y O -O � •� O •CS > v O ❑ O a d ❑ dap a -Cl QvOd a a .yr. N •O O Lz] O o a z' M E � b .Y n C -Q aj .� ^� •� FL. 0 ra C E a _c Qj o � a y b •� y � � Y > v o Y bL u v C OQj C ,C : • cu m 3 y y Y Y Q v °' ca lu • Y � E- E rorsz3 O C O ra -C w a p C; `a a L G yaco mj y G o rII U Y a •� V i Y fn a a ro � y a 7 C; y y u C u o a C a a Gi C CL; C a y w w a -0 US y G a a i C -C w m v a ti a s a s '6 p ro O a-yi •t%> U0) ayi v O LLj fG4 4� V an.. Q L" •b D E .'a. S3. C LL0 i rn C � rrf P Q a s tf G 0 pap (u G OLl u a a ra a [4 Q 7 � O � ❑ a cp y � � o Y 3 Q S] G O � cCtl O � 7 ❑ ER, �, a a o lu ° E ° . a -0 G L u sC. w S�, 'a 'O � q •� y O y G � 0 3 w vcu d= p L b q va 7 a y a y u_ b- O Ln C `oE Gv U 7 cn p C vVip rail m [s] Y G bD '^ C'3 U ate+ a vo_'aoo°�' -Ela "C E z u ru o v" w u a`i y E =.0 C"z L c y �_ C C O r•C p C N ' a a ro G L w -1 O C Ln a d a •� .�-'I bb rA a Ln •cn cl V z�' mo --a 3�J2 i Y ie 1 0 " ` s C ro Q� a a u .y {6 vi -C C L a U O p p c3 C C a a m a s c'a _bD •+� LA d C rn in O d' pp p a W 7C -C7 a a o M o cC a 7 i•' Ln y C p C O w G a L cYv O O •� a a u V L P B a rn u G O 6 O J a C O O y r n [Z a G C Ln� ❑ V � L C= G i O 3 Cl 75 O L L cz E p a a O Ln M O N f u N u v a s 0 7 0 G. U ,E G. O O � c. a m -C to � °4 G a Y b o ro � c O � � ` aroi civ a E q y u> w L ?r [n 'b a U C u a E Y •0 i W cu C C O Q Q o -p a s F- a a b L a r [a ` Ln i" CU G L O a��'+ 0. E 'Q DA ?• c.) u a 'p tC4 G vOi rCC O W G Y V a �bD Q E a C G IL i �. a w G y O y a L �. — .� .� •� y Y V a y w u c4 a (U 2 G y v 40- Y y a y i y +,ti -y "�'to M G° m 4~i 3 G y Q a A �C)�ro°c'Ec c° ��°E u n o o �'G� 7zi rn C 1) co_N '1) m a '� a 4, N O a a❑ u •� rCG •O y s, O O G �' FL �••a G ^U C .O U rl O a := o Q a W U 4. cu G C a E .o U G v C D'AU o vi R. rn ro a 3 u o a •� S O C C "a d G bn •Y Q. O 6 O G Y b C6 y%i ro w 0 tX a •� '� w '� O N4 C, 3 7m Cl U m L a U .� v D a a bA a 'm N D 0 ? c 0 o a y E 0 n G v w CP ca CL)_� a o a> G a u v nCi G [a Y x C qy -0 C ... a E y� y j O 0 tC Q q 0 y a 'i y L aY a a V 4, CD Q V F -i Vj •a U O D ra m y a E a E -p 'fe [L6 0 4 p, O I-=- a u O L7 rG �'-' bn •O O b9 O G G ;:, u �' Q 4, iv w` C a cc G G a L .� y N o •bD G y U O O O O E 'C G C E -G mE¢ Q C A a a C tri p a L rd o a S? >, w C a to cu -G E p, a' N U cn Gv.s O b S], •+ E ta. d" o v N O N a 0 O N a 6] O O 9UJ 'a=+ 7 C a p C1. -b -a ` b.o'� L rryj •� ¢, eti to O` O a U ai •fl (� L L L7 O O �' - C '++ O O a ca C u u p C qxj '= u qj y i U a i -+, E •vi +J Q C C E u ❑' O b O y O i7 a a) u nL C> 4 ro to C� •[b a �' C C E O C a a + rd L) y n ''. G a -,;, u U bfl u m +, R. u c sa, tld L •ai •� 0 �-a v L L L Q L fE �S•. �..i Y E W Y a vE a 5-4 Ln�, �D O G� un O O tlJ O� v �� a a a s 4. a� L rn a �, a u o a f1. u w", p u .0 C rl a -0 c o c'• v� a .c a Q a c G W a y G a ❑ •o +;r u u u tv u c an G c E Q U SC E : L L� v '❑ G a E a L 0 ro C �""i .� y a '0� r'. 19 r 'C' 'C.' '.'� L F-• i. Q ro 6' q1 V N C O N E a p W�3 ro �n34�E O U H° 2 F Q-Bm3 E .E d "O C ry i a f1 W z d; Lti t0 N cn N CA ro m N O. D IV a 1+ w' y K fD -I a n r6 a. C ro 0 m C L"I C Dpi w w n 0 P3 ro O D �4+ n *10 n w -- n a O n0 vi 0• '� fl. � O m�*. � R. C1. a G y G G LA 'Ln n � �'cCn 6 � � .r°y � � ,..� � � rD Oi :° w ❑' -L r7 m O❑ rt r6 n ^ V, �' �. 0 n b O ry 0 C O co O 0. O 0 O rL a CL m ID O. n C Q• 7 y C ~.rD M w G N 0 a q G SZL (D 0 -1 d R. .3- N TJ ryr rt rD rL o n n O '-sp '❑ O to n o C fl a G rL n❑ aQ w a w Mt r .rD rD O � r� •+ C O � rD Q rL � R b rD ❑ m rD �. v �' � rC N .'s. vCi rD rwr 0. m p M p O p O R O O Crq (D 'i7.-, '9 rD w a rD C rD O 'D rD O 0. G O C ro. -3 Ob n t_na C cin rnr rOr d C R p 7S w o w wa rL O T A w rrDD cOn 9 n rs o La� C r* n r r '^ ❑' N❑ rL ci ry-r f0.o O-- ", z [D w 0. C n p y -s rD a .0 R O a. A+ C .��. p7 rt Z y R oo m= ° o7c m o o. ^, n w a? rrD rD L n M o.rD :n CDrL 03 " a O rr ' O T cOn ¢• O ry n N O R rt "y C ❑ rnr (DD ❑ ':F r r R ¢ rwr w n' '' a ❑ a R D) G C: CD y c N N S3. p, tin 00. SD N O CCD In -g o F oV) y m rt 9 0 G rT V 7 O m -� - rD rrDD y. co a Day O W. � '9 w W '� v EL Z y C rn-' y' 7 w =rQ G y rar w rD O CD rD n G p �• N ..h �. C rD - Z w N ❑ 04 w ¢, rD n ¢, a _ w" C h a4 7Q n as R C Q. a4 A� ry-r O y r•r r'*e� CD y* rD rD C Q7 n p ''* R w 0 Ln o rL w mQ n �' v rD ro -fix w y rt O R G• ¢ p G z QQ CL)a4 = m rD G a s n f° �' c `° p n C C O,. .b .p fls '� ..p R• .Y O G 0. O O w d rn. OD w .•*� a GO w "i .G.r rD-r @ C 9a rDrD O n -s ❑ O o `� `� o o rD C❑ Ln rt yR rt '3 O w n R O3 w" �' k �. w m � v d 4. o' rR6 p CDD N y �' m rL O p o r CLO O^ Al CI. (DD C ph G f °y vi 0. rD -t 2 n❑ m O V �. R n rDcn CL tA CA ro m N O. D IV a 1+ w' y K fD -I a n r6 a. C ro 0 m C L"I C Dpi w w n 0 P3 ro O D LOS N C a ar o A m a � 3 N a u +�+ C Ob . o 'CS - C F- G as a • .fl Y CUcu ro O y cri rn '•C7 'bcu v 7 w O y cn 6 vi p L u rn a ° y u m 71 D u as m m v 1� G 42,'M n ❑ ca m U D) u Y C L '-''-• K C � G ,� U •C L- p 0 N ra II r'J m Q cn Y � [a Q ca U U L l ara v V La, C y tu .Ui 7 U c L Q7 rG a U y xL a ro rL o S6 rh L a _ C O Ld C L E 40 y � a rl LnLn m a} G F-, .— V) ❑ v;C c a y y La, ❑ .0 u G rtn G y p yr (4 O p ❑ L > ay y Y G O G it ra O N • z E 0 G u LC. O ❑. tDn 'O +� a O i rtl -6 U rn p. vai G p yy., a O u E G U II G ct N .b W ro i LMbLD aJ a1 a G X G V N U b -b O cm 41 Ln u a ra p uo •v 9 b ay a C a m Y„ o a) cu L) n r- (L;x a. a 41 a� Y ¢ ro ¢ ❑ v v n o cn o Qy O y a x 4° u o roa G rd roa,`�n n N 41 ro Y F [6 O G..LnC Y G UG7 •Y rn U Ar .b Fr. V ❑ rn ca L tA D71 d CL sn ❑ D ro [S a v O u O, yi E C s°D C N C. m O 0 V O O .L -i y ❑ a ro g ct n ro d SA n B ❑ O. O [S II N G d❑ �-+ J••i �% ro 'LS SLY !-. L a Ld C ria y Q CU D t7 s4- o ai cY�C ; v O D V u LC. a y a) u O +. D O �, ' LD. O 'd �] Sr y b0 '>co La. 4 V v ca Fes- d • • • • p. v u O L. C i ++ N G ai O ra to V u L {G O 4 m ai 0aj 5 b o a o a cu ro E m ? ao a a m En C r w E o 0� C Q) :7 C = ro❑ D L' a > b L S~ v 4' rY6 P. Lo V i7 L a u z L O= Y U P. U W 6 L ++ D U La. ro E w bz 0 cu La. O Q rn �� C D X =_ E 7 G G C E Ln 0 7❑ Ln G a. O dl V V) L Q a o La. CU u 3[ jinn n d O O •� ❑ G La, G O G a L ro o v Ln Q} ru r cu aJ Y Q C'a ru V3 C 0 rn U O ::s'd C a L 6�G Cl) rn A V 'u7 x P, !'�• C _O t 33 'A m d YO q L6 yr _ O Q D d Z (CC ro [moi a '� 't3 v G G C y ai ✓, O❑ C p tU its �.+ L yr P a5 � o ra En YO C E L ry a L V ¢, S3' i a) C 41 OL aT u ro U v p b D rn '-' m CO Cr row E E Y M rLq O Cs M y E O V y E O E a as p 'E .� '� m m � p. G w y ami y-' ❑ .. G N ry O N U L Y 'A u' ? n bL n❑ L e--1 ��' a W c C m G M Q L. p aj d' ti4 - i L ❑ L C ❑ C E N G W N L a.a rG -� rn +V' '❑ a G G d" b O Y N bA .Y. u a a E o o b 7 a ro❑ aU E '❑ ^cCi 'D b 'O rC4 v Q, •� •C • G C :7 .E � .E L G LU ch 3 V5 u E O � G � H r`] Q'i D U J V1 � D? LOS N C m � 3 N u +�+ Ob o - a d • O ro O y cri rn '•C7 'bcu v 7 w O y cn 6 vi p L u rn a ° y u m 71 as v 1� G 42,'M n ❑ ca m U D) u aJ n U + C N r4 � ❑ C � a � ❑ V La, C y C fn .Ui 7 U D a U y xL a ro rL o S6 rh L a _ C O Ld C L E 40 y � a v rn N m a} G F-, .— V) ❑ v;C c a y ryc w ❑ .0 u G rtn G y p yr (4 O p ❑ L > ay y Y ra O N • z E _T Ill d ❑ Z M D x � � rt s. D � n. tp @ mv • • • a n i y D a D >✓ p' 0 to "p n -3 [ 0' < � '-y „•[ @ " to ti 7 @ G - O Q C `G ❑ rD Q p S @ @ a rD @ ro -t y a p w¢ p tr w n b ro ° p, p C S '.o @ CL -z rt n °' a> rt@ w@ PP G ro n er ., S@ ❑ ., n to n y @ CD rDrt O ro In rr O@ `C 'C n [i7 y m S 'G rt W '•1 ro R. ^•r Q ❑ ru o to ,2 ^❑ ;' v @ 4Q O <. D in p to rr O @ = n „dy a G '-s G @ @ `•n o ❑ S -• 7p w .... y ' @ to w 'a ro y S a O rt@ rD rr E Q R• Ln @ a. w O Af `n Cr' rn `C w ro G G rr @ @ �-n G- I w D @ @ G a '❑ CDCD � y 0 n a O " C ^�7 @ 0 (DDcrq A' K 'O -h `{ ^G A� .b `•� O D <p 7 r O r, y @ C m ~ °' LA '' cr � � �' m �' �. � r' �. @ Ln X O � '�` ❑ w � � `vii rD 0 El rD n '� [<C 'u - �' a O '� :� rD OQ rD in ❑ n a. O LA rw-' p ma M Q, rw-r �w�7 Q4 y n' n r '.D rtrw•r, w W a n S c Q tli QQ 'n @ �* ~. C p n ti ¢, a� ❑ N rD :Y .p N �_ n p K ro p !-t p Q. Q En C ° 'Os � a ems-' O n- -%n 20 CL N p y '.3 {�D A.' rt O p �• a• @ pl ^ roG@ rr fl O [G D �' C T S A �. fl, sn -, y Q x ,s O C p �` `;-' C p C .S 0'q En n O• ro* 6. i. O •� Q@ Z 77 w r. ❑ rD �❑ @ c p_ 't o n to w °, @ @ w @ to '❑ •cs ❑ 7 ¢' '�•r G w> Q '� rn ,b '"r �. w W r -r Cs' b C 7 "d 'p 'C C Qq cn• < n G =• rt C ro G o a Ort m n ❑- O 'C C p a. m TA n x @ Q ro @ n rp _n oG rD p- a- "r C ,rt w O rT `C G Z Lnp� @ '^ @ ID C y, CD 'I .A w p CD A� M. cn - ,� '❑ ~ fCa7 � a ,��y O a• N � cD ''❑ rD -1 W O N m 7 �,r M �0�7 O n p O s W rw•r 67 "T= p-• Ln CO) O 9U @ '❑ ,❑ 'd_•r• �' O O O 0.@i y n. .ns N G p" ❑r -~•r � rD rD ro O O a ro .� ro❑ n d' 4 '••s C C c°p ❑ C= �'' -Cs a rt -s @ a a! w 0 ,,, ws•, rD w Q rr n to ,M CL -0 r•r @ 'C fC -� in rD ro '-'� w• C [D n ro 0 M n p O ❑ As n @ ? '�'7 ,Y C4 _ rr '�, n 'Iy p '•T A- y rt m G. to O @ ID T Rq• w ,❑.� 4 's ¢- p p r❑•' `C ^* G rp , y O 7 R LA C CnD 'C a G wi rC�r R r^ eG-' r7r yr�D O fD @ w c➢ r�D R. '�+ G. .y-+ ¢ ro p = N <- f�D �' w w sy w 'rt• _ C w7 C Ln n n ro n °_ rD rD G M W S G = fl a n rD ¢ cn @ @ ❑ ❑ =. w wy � 7 n UQ �n� @ cC a• Ate .coi o ¢, o C C v w O. �. [@ii rwD Q. ACi ''7 '❑ @ >�- `G 'O „�, 7 {A �y = G rD 0 p � (A ��r^DDy Q ,a to fD n O 7 to G O %n O O Yr C @y ry Ci w@7 rN•r C d ^ n. @ O [tnG @ n N ,rrt D .❑ a n 4 -•n C @ '-r n❑ O @@ rt C P Z 7 O G rL rt ' w C .s 6i a a¢ G w5 rr w+ rD y Q -n ❑ �S D '��' n 0 TJ ¢ n rr r n .O rrtD -ror O C Q A C= @. ,�'� nGi CDp Oy �. •� 0 lu d w CL "n m [n . f74 w O a @ ❑ Qti rn' w p _a. m fl. O O 0 _�, y W <D y ^ �, '� rrD CL. I0'4n Q, rt G w @ O O 44 cnD C 'y n0 G 0 IIQ t~D < M �• V7 a n C rD rt 7 ryr in C C w] ,y rn w :b' �-r C rr ti O x m Q. 6 = ro O. rp C w .� ••� @ V, e••' n ro •s @ C n a p ro @ ro ° .� ro w w7 < @ ;� ? ro ,� ry "^r w M O wrti '� rD' O rpr Q O rL O. p � O C Q La 0•Cq �, r? p o w @ to .o vi -1 @ n � � @ rp' ''_'�, v �• ¢ 7 y .y G wr toCL us @ O � S rD R .3' n 4 w 'G tT o• = w CDD rC-r �' �- 04 r+ O SD O _ > 0 D %.. @ ^G `C R• @ p a "+ w '.y a. ro n G- G 'tJ p n r- G Q' G n CL ri, O 16 (71 n O OC- O' r'G y rD O• C n am O .�-r ; U-74 to 'r3 rt C ,67.r <- "O to ..j p ,�.r - I--` O n O Sn >❑- ey+ Ci x rD 'y "C7 R• r* �' rwr 7 �• G rD @ p -i w� tn• p w G n rr Q• n rt m @ v x= .tY wr p C :i r, O V O K R 0 � .y (DD N ^i C �- w O E n w fl+ y b rn rc rD y rt M ci O ro S ro p Ln p rt p ❑• G rD CD i tro ❑n CM n C tn . O 7r 0 O U-1 0 C C• ffm O n 2y° O . fD �. rt C w cr CD `T• � p ❑, @ � "' rwi. �' m 7 � to w] -S `C a' S C 7 'p ro w1 w w p O - CD G CD m G �' ' r*. -1 @ .� d f0 @ G 7 G = _ O ... p to w rD p rD b O• N ''7 O n O rw•' Z d w`inG• wp' h7 Rrti n n• C 0 p+ O r<D F' ❑ O Y. @ ❑ S °� p Q @ n G pr' w D v' "� d rr n s❑Ln m. C x ?� to p, w [n n -, C` �• n G «y d' C W rt Cn a Q O `lD 0� , ro = co �, @ Qq w @ 0 c @ rD ,, rr G rD G n rD W 't O 0 t%., p` - n Q ''� m 6 y w7 OQ SD a rt f ° Oo Qa ;u Q m G a ❑. Q. ' S Ch {J r � R >-� wto -1j �1 n t'rtL a � w• CD '@d n• rD n' C d. [ q Q ^. y rpn p p ro °^ 4Co @ t C o p w-" w a L n w �' O n - ,"'.r rwr fD O = @ rD n� C w @ '�- pq CO n rt, rD ❑ (D rr 'w•' rD rDID r,)p m G ppq n cn w O O p f7D C C S rD r-' n- ro w C @ w ❑ 'w--' f1 �• �• rii p O rD w _ w p G w `G C � '❑ c' '.� rD '❑ CD @ O. rt. C D s? M w ro n to w w n O 7G' w r*:r o n@ ro O v C * n C N k O wG ' @ G a S -@ CL ( p S M O N �. .^ n „ < ❑ °C ry w N '❑ w7 S Dia C tom➢ -3 C= G p ru ,o p rt C p G n Ga a' O 0• N r'D @ wo L13 lu •roU' 0 ID R> 7Q On 'C•r UQ cn -s O. '..t .y ro O w C h rr C ' dG rD r, �•O -1 ID SD ,w@i n G @ p7p QOG N 6Qi -' _ a' n,roY O T." cCrr @ wr @ S w C w n Wfy U'K '�' wl fl. O w) p m rt ^rti r r, @ O p R• �' O. ro y C rF = y O ew-r vai O to n O O W ,T y Q C O O to n --t rn a ly C Q' UC n rnn C O m `� @ UG r%n ro [n v O. x rL O. n• rL 0 G rD rL O 0 o n CL O @ R oa rD ° rD �* G m o a. ('D (D oCD CD 113 -0 o a. o fl IA o �. cr°�_. raD o ° Qua fl o @ r<o'; = "a `�' rnr r0 O. < DC rt �''' wrt.. ^w rD p ro G v1 rt C rn �n rD r�D fD r�D ° ww v O `G .0 H M r'G 0 -a CD @ ro '� n a �' ?, w �' A S o C7 S � KGs QG 7 �' @ rt ti d o d a@ 'p @s 7 n -� rt a 5 7 S Q a m w a - CD @ @ Cp �• n C @ O :n '-•' CD ❑ G w> rroD ❑ a a @ n� A. cn of L rD e' w p .y p -r G cn ro sn @ C w a, .y ti ti n _ rt @ p Q n- n a C 0 00 p' rD R 0 N O @ 7 w ¢.'C• ❑ r'•'sD na" �. p sZ .y N• '�• 474 ''❑ rn n ? �n @ rrCA 'a m mO ? �' N O m SCD z `� @ 6 w .❑ � @ •0 '� F CL CD °, @" N rL `" p ZEt m o w n n m p p O w ro ID a. 7 9a �rr^ty CI] fl.' 7• '� =r O ❑ rt r, CO ¢ @ O 0 rnD n '•C Q. �' m V 4C4 Ln w p O G O K �' fn9 = p Cn w7 to @ ro �' rt C G ro n -*> 7' 00 w rD ,..r b0 �*. N G p 'O*s 0❑G ❑ " @ w W '� ro a `•C O @ rwr w) G G rr -r ,.,� @ W rp+ m d� a n p v FLC� S -x a @ CD C ^t w�7 "" d W "�-� rn— "rtS G_ C TCDD tt m p' m n O r@n d Q R w -ws C o rt m `< m O (77 to O ❑ ° p n n UG " C �' " a, cn Q @ ^❑ '-� G rL n O `< w rnD CII. m o p '�'r m y 0 0 C. ,19, C p r+ w p Ln 0' 0 'y n Rq C In ro ota -� o cD < n o rt n cn r�D G �nf cn O n m E. Q' Z w rrtp y v' cin n °o vOi rD n `G C p p, as Z R - O�@ D ro =n M n C eC-r n m C C to rr o r G C! C 1 0 PO a G n I@ 10 E E 7 61 CL t c 0 c rZ O T m ty •O ro y ,�-' a. p u Q rG ^ SLi E 6. c a 3 a o E o Q r v V_ U pp u L ai o u a F O 6 L sU. d o P. Qu s Q I.U. o Y m F4 E o 0 3 ° aroi 0 `V' u C G a � � ? U E D 41 U y a" C y � •bn � � E m - U71 K�bEz,r°(6 U 4cu . U n• m S.. O E' U V o v +, C > u °' o. P, v a ami ,C o C E � a' T Y +••I C o y m C O U oZ,�EEC'ou C E .0 a0, u v fUE O a u U m �. m uv LC 7 Tid m v m y 0 CU Y G y 0 L u b L ro N cv ar ami w 0 Q C T •. L �..i L m iJ Lni Ln m Edsu E� Q4JW 'D n5 ' E v Z n Ln D 'D C � O fV m m v m a 3 �� y � 7•n Y .� W v o a O �+ 4.1 p O > ° r > y E a o yr � , C r, -J U ° V 'o b O E U G �- � G Ll Lx7 i •fl a U � G� s o b a 47 y --aC� �" O w al •a '� U '' a3 + a a m E O m c v E N U QJ •� ,-- VI .p 7 rl 7 E O C v m a C W m o� c E�2 y Ln C m W oq = u is w Y r •L Lo d U -O w= a YO v L Lo W° E u L a E 0 tuo W� aj Q) E � In •U y Ln to C I(z Gi U ami y' Q' E > E" w m E v E.c E ao� > C U u� ia w .E p O p roE�Q_�U�,m Ud L' LO ° u F. 7 C 4 � U E 'D -O vi C .0 Y L U U to a E- L L V O C m D � O i Q •o C G a. E o cn d R tz N O ut a L y ay a 's p u A D rYG C a � y cu m a V Y tLc L- ', Lj bin C7 V] OL 0.1 m U (D G a i As C U 7 40 U N CU O rG O .0 Y G U O �, O sLb W "C i U i C V, o G Y U LU. U U V) ° C v r v O C Ln zv�E�u R rG ;0- = C st ri m O u w Q b a ° E as u > 6'3wm y C ..O 4J I N m L ^ � O 7U a v � i L C 3 _D .� ro o uLi o •a m a c D ro c E o +� E v o O VI C 0 L ro ro m U p V7 r a v U au L C rz IU. y 7 "Cl Ycu a) 7 ul b cn u Q1 C +••' a L L Y fA I U+ C s D 0 m m o d sc � � T +� m rte. U a•' Q E e° E +' r tip fA M (U O �2 oM N 0 N V1 Ln ri N E- _T CdcuQ} U L tc5 'D C O Y Y � u � Qf a �" V7 E Q U � b fx O m b U N y C L L F U V s a D � 7 m m U YU a N Ld N i b a C N W VI p . W 0 a E o V O cn 0 0 m w E tx y C C •+ C E sC. O t� ^ L U U Cl.U U r- 0 a V OO cC zm z U U V} L A� y� Wp Ewa, ¢• � •�.., pp C z c CLm. .0 C 7 p Y 4' a L s ` L C ° CM -a u LLA O ,C C. > rG td N A .Q G/] b X a •u m E� O o L a a o a C rC a C t" QJ 0 D al •> i •'D v v o mai 7 Y Orj V Ld L u -° a c, ra v s C `° c L :� °' °' m : O Q 'L.Ln O 'aj 'C �' � C O +O' a m U •� ° C•� W y b7.0 ... C cn C �, 7 C O rd S! F O o G _� M ro a� C Y U P _� N s u SGA C >•; CD ro C v d E u" ro° cu y -p •� S D N U a) O C P. a Y Iq S U m eo a V E n� m oL C fl. E C S cn .b •N C '� .n 6 a P. 'C O C L 'b u Q, m d a 0 � .� 3 -a umi ro �� m a ao z�° °'�C-o�� o� a, a, E o o 3 = 'a G '� V C + 'd cia .W v V •� �u L13' C a U Q Z FL .L D CZ'�-' L a cn Q1 L•' tLC U Y QY > Q. °' y G' C ,E C O C + O O U +' U '^ U 'C: 0. �y Sy. UUE�o-0Yo9c°s ° 'a ULn u E cYa n a mo -a °a° E E o 3 a� m v A o cn o > YU.. C O °a,' t6K]4 N v= 43 y d m 0~i -�3am-• m Eu E O c .E c y E r v o Q z b� a a" b D ami y v a) o v o= m, m > , a d C O 41 m 0 a C m F d r -I 0 Q C T •. L �..i L m iJ Lni Ln m Edsu E� Q4JW 'D n5 ' E v Z n Ln D 'D C � O fV m m v m a 3 �� y � 7•n Y .� W v o a O �+ 4.1 p O > ° r > y E a o yr � , C r, -J U ° V 'o b O E U G �- � G Ll Lx7 i •fl a U � G� s o b a 47 y --aC� �" O w al •a '� U '' a3 + a a m E O m c v E N U QJ •� ,-- VI .p 7 rl 7 E O C v m a C W m o� c E�2 y Ln C m W oq = u is w Y r •L Lo d U -O w= a YO v L Lo W° E u L a E 0 tuo W� aj Q) E � In •U y Ln to C I(z Gi U ami y' Q' E > E" w m E v E.c E ao� > C U u� ia w .E p O p roE�Q_�U�,m Ud L' LO ° u F. 7 C 4 � U E 'D -O vi C .0 Y L U U to a E- L L V O C m D � O i Q •o C G a. E o cn d R tz N O ut a L y ay a 's p u A D rYG C a � y cu m a V Y tLc L- ', Lj bin C7 V] OL 0.1 m U (D G a i As C U 7 40 U N CU O rG O .0 Y G U O �, O sLb W "C i U i C V, o G Y U LU. U U V) ° C v r v O C Ln zv�E�u R rG ;0- = C st ri m O u w Q b a ° E as u > 6'3wm y C ..O 4J I N m L ^ � O 7U a v � i L C 3 _D .� ro o uLi o •a m a c D ro c E o +� E v o O VI C 0 L ro ro m U p V7 r a v U au L C rz IU. y 7 "Cl Ycu a) 7 ul b cn u Q1 C +••' a L L Y fA I U+ C s D 0 m m o d sc � � T +� m rte. U a•' Q E e° E +' r tip fA M (U O �2 oM N 0 N V1 Ln ri m� � N Z �4 m y v nID m C7 � O n 3 m 3 m _ 7 3 � 1D v r* --3 C. d m ro m CCn 3 D as o ni >v -o �, "; 'O ?s. O. C. O n ani rD r m O C n Mcniitn n v m n _a' n 4 r� O G O fl, `C r n q G R O n M w al A m w q R O a aq rD -s ro R f17 O O R 7 -n ,rt nn v' z, tO to rnr, O w n SJ Al _� o rn s n w 6 m 'o q o + rD O i7 m p a w rr C "S M7 rn-'' p fl. Q d m Irlt CCD .x`7'1 rt w w m y n< w (~D rn Ori)Q �. a. O Al O ° t" 7G" O w `G O rt -1 = O n O Q ;n MrL C4 -1 w d O QQ O' [ !D C A� ••I •[ (D 7 rp rD 0 ri (D ro p 7• w= O 4 0 v, 0 O ` CD a m °10 Cy D "1 twn rD O w rt g a O C. 7 ro C O R C -D n v o (D N = r+ O d -S rt CD Cn cq w A 0 0� O O - fn 5 ry CD cr r~D w C M tom ' S3. CD CD 2 O• Ort .0 p a CD CS et f C to rC•r O ry fl. C q n`CNJ was n�:r o o o a of °, ° o' ¢ C n rD -•1 � em rw•r ems•' v G-81 � '01' `� p. rD O r+ a vwi O CSDC a' O n O CD m 'n fl. O `Ai W Q Q rL LA LA rD N w OC4 CL I 'b • ;� n rD Q �7 O. r IN s P1 n' On rD 4 ❑ Al aGr�D <D ., 0CD CD -n r, w n o (D n+ �' a n o• rD -� �' CD � ~rD C O FD w ruVI n • En Q CD .-A Ln rS to O • w r -r O rD LA (D D' C C N R eCr rD ro R � C O• y � ..1 -•1 w C cD n w o n � rD a 0. 7� r9 rD O a n r�•r O n. (rtD 'O C �* a- m c'o m w cn .d a w � � 7 O• rD n o r+ a al N al w 7 to LArD y GL � ti w a ._ r o to ° w nrnD Q rho CD awCW w y rCD a- 0.0 fD Q rD c rb n •un 7r -, rD t -n rD w p O CD N O 1-+ 46 o O O o O O o O O O C [i7 7 w CCD c¢9 rD C w O b n rD n C w 0 n D. '� M. � • @ C �• C ^O n n ro o „,1 ro C ;� oC R -t rD y e=i Al O .S �• fD rC Al p- 9a 's O '� .O N V3 z n v r°•r y CL ro C w w w w ai r�D n ['7 n y al -5 O C' •y to O w n ,b LOr. rt r+ a Q. rpr p w Q Ln 6�i 'p rt O O 7 U7G rt n' � O• � O � P- N � q' O n w rD rD aR 07 ^ d .Y rn (D yr n C cn C. o 0,qr y v+• ' p� -1 to O W a' w 7 'G C to C. R. C C a} 6i y M, M ^�[ n CCD rND rt n0 !p 7' ro4o eDD 0 n. w C (D LnU) (D rD ?� X -s w z o �s w a CD s' rn o rD n o' ° w rD - [V m .o :5o. M n rnr _N Ej' * to �. O rD rD C y o ° m O CD ,� to to .j �• q p ,� =n L n O a07 w o m r- G ° ti 'f7 ° m = rD rD O rte-' ° �' r' n C C q C d y• O. rt O CO O w C `C C n C 7 c9 m D 'a O n in p rt Q T Al ¢ Q O q n m AJ ,C.' n Q. ^ 0.1 0 q 'O ID rr rt CCD v rD n D M O G w O n— LO plo o a7G n rD W n rte„ 1D wi a)", o rD rC-r rt "w r9 C Al G rCr O ¢. O S to fD C O O O rY `L' C '6 -s rDci O d w 0'Q M :7 w cn rD (D tD p �. Ort O CRD al C G In w re 7 CD O �a ,--' y w °EnE3vi aCl ro o o C d ¢- 'O rD C O N m n rD p ca to 0.1 w C rD G ° o x n a mCL On rD uCi n w 'O n y r0D 7 aq CL m CD rt a -R•1 O m CD ¢ O pa ~ 0."-n ti � fD 0 61 CA n a) Q a. u 1. N '7 m N F. cu CO C Lf) u C b d) tz p° co cu Q� 3�bn VI CU 4. a) D � 'C Lam. � • V � i. E C p aJ 7 L o Q C M .� CU u V Q Y C ar x cup N N L P i rCa O vi N u j m t^4 y p d p ID tz r, C V3 rC F=. O u n a ra ai ;t Q 'J of v, OU Vi C N cn U O 0 C Q L by O aJ In V y U F 6. 'A F R C � Q u - E C Q u c6 Ln U r U C'd C � C C4 f4 C a. rtl vi v tC ra ++ u] y G VI Ul Ld N ' .G Q4 C i O u O C. �. ?•, 0 O 4 C. C '� C. � S6 m U W p y o L f4 ti oLn p wct a o uEn w ba 3 3 cu LM L 4� ECA v s;tua C 0 o a v v 3 o •a o s; a 0 m C C o Fr S. p a a o o v 61.4 a ro aj D,, C p aJCA Ln tko *... o u U 'C m ai v O 4) tn aS C C y �" +� 0 cu W D A 7+ ra U v u c6 a C± y p u '�, u ba ,C ,C L v7 rG C O LI C to U cn Fes., C s°. D .0 C C y L [d L L m S6 V" CN a o rA O D U .[n y 47 D a1 Ste. a b0 - 9) j O -0 'C 'O a-+ ° ° OL [�6 O L d OH '� 'a=> .O y, (Oj aA 61 •y_, V} C. N U7 U �-• ++ �1 C y � CS � y a � � � C � � ra S4 � L � D •� :� '- 4 2 R7 z Za7 fx O d CG E Ll �L F- aF >h O D 0 u b Ln.0 p 73 'D O o -= 'i .Q "a P y " as �' m C M v� Q _ cu O Q ,� v rn rf v, cG i= r- m bfl a1 Ln C '} C u - Lncc C d Qai C C �' !�' baa O CU C u �.,' `^ C UU.7 b i ate+ 'V C Q v aoi % au_� ua L b 0 L vtn a a, W C C D p N b4 -k C 6. B ^ V7.�. vs 'u L� -4- p n P L U s. a� O as C y cn � C Ci4 v W C) — Q �, a U v m y y ro C A as as p ^p Q L '6 '> m "� s°. bA s,, "� — 0 m u ° as CL CL rd S] O 6 tiD Qart a C C in E• L C O ro G C w N L 0 >'Qj - L U C R.in y aCi p d, C Gi �+ in O 7J i, -Z D N = Z v d y Q j, 'G 0 u a1 a -- U[tea ev 2) - GA y M V) L mG� 0.a Cj Y m v Ln a w Q1 UD �' G% to V L Qi ^ V �. a Eicu �+ -C V "y Qom.' a1 t }� u p ,?} L, ° i..CU•� a5 0 L Y P.� p luQ hD in saj D. ^d v L U L`6. � Zn C � C N x C y CU U O0� o� sv, t a.a L � E ca cu O> co L.jU r 0.) D La tv D C bA y O C. C G v7 _ C C p GO L YD U to d t:Lcs n a o .�• �, D b ° � E p L Q. E C. V' y rl a� Q 3 '� A. O O C -CJ 'LD' y s. to '° v 6 W C. CU �0 O C El C 'B L uy �. ❑ L. N u O y Q C Ci. i C vl A . 1 D cn H m ;� ani u i v� ° 0 m Q- 3 a L -w ai a ° v p u a ° u ba m u i y ro �° .o C m •� C a 'v ro U CS cG ¢ •u c. b� aO -° �C�.•, C OL. C �' cn w Gs .0 ;G U d. W 71 C aJ O r IOD u Ln ¢� L a) a1 rn ^[ y ?, --�. W C R. - L) C rG ,� O s; v a y �+ Q O '�;, v .O y in .Y ami L Ld U H >, a) U L O 's:. v " Ci L" M f4 — tn1> p Ld D '9' u �. C p is .D 'G ° a7 b0 [� G C U, m O m _ r 4 C ^ pO 0 .d G.' -� G 0 ^' lb °fs •C 'C " Ln s47, +� ami d fl,. � C V) U3 .L a -o ,O L .Cl a� ° �, A .m+ O a .. y c o rn m a o . .0 ,, y" � `- co ❑ u c y U a! N y p a) a 'a v y b C i .� a) '-L7 'C .n y 'C a. U Vl ' Lp. vj > []y •� b0 D C]" S3. C D U y aJ aJ 'C L aJ Q b aJ "'C cj v is c 4 d E-- cn C: y rs'. C] CY s� C ai W M C cuc V) i E- « o E- m E a. �t: E✓ � aQ y _ro a c u Q v n a w Q w Z u N LL w o o er10 (D r- rD o ;c _a• m o SD o� o 0 � 3 v� _n � -a o w h o w w w c cn rD n a= �� -� 'y ro ..o • .0 -1 Op W 'a ••'r y r ° A r' �' r-' w a' Z w rr n n S y o C O ' 7 m a. C, � ["' rD °" O m n 'ts m , w m a a s ?_ b y 9 cq O cr -, CD ovy ,a M n (D .1 m �, z a �. m G " a~ (n �• �~-� ams 7 fl � `4 n `D ° w c CD r aq y r m uq 1n rD ° p b = ` S m b 0.O ,ry (vs C ,' a t- v 1a CM R < ro r% rL o ai 0 CD N o 0 Q PRD k -� R �. ii 4 Q y v, R [D (D M 51� R ° 1 , CD � Cn W N m b fl. ''� r7f 0 `—'• 0 `�' 7 m 0 R a�Q 4 q C,'.�� -° �_ a 6q (D K• d ro "�' y arL ro y x o w a [ 7 p a 7 ro H 0. rt �* 7@ a, a s Ort m 0. a' CD rL o O Q- a ti O :► C 0. C ro 'a G O rD y rD C `C O w y O ro m ro m O '�:] �—` O R. �• ,p ro (D ro 'O y -r rn a p w eC•r C. �. v= N O w G "O O M Cl. O C A5 =r 3C N �+ '•y 'C � k7 cn rt C 'CS O C ti '�•[ ° rD N fD M rn �, y in m =s' oq o S y rt n m n _- CD �p Toa � a a S m o y C7 c" a -s ro o n 'C a' rr rr rt rD (p ro C7 a a o S 'a rD 0 o ° C �- fc9 R .t°: -i O p w Q ao a w CD ".?� 7< o a° n ro '' ro a C '.R7 (On R '-i in '� G '+ D a. 7 ¢'. O "y a P- = `G '[3 .7 Cn ro "c rt a O CD t➢ n• '''S fD -t w O CD ,..r w .D R as n cn -i G- a' `G '* ��-9 P5 O NVRi " j CD � tD rar N D m ro C•' m = :" C � n .., R �, ' y n0 CD O .a O w G ;c n 'z O w "•s 'v y 4G ro 'Y O N a' rt R O -y a' �' a O w [D a � Lrti O OX w 7 G. to ,O C ''* C "j R ra ro p ro .y "-'• 0. '� ro - '-i O `C w r+ -r '� � tn' O p �u "'i o~i y m roy Ej a ort O ro n �' U, va- w O G °� a n Q r (DD ro^ R ro R CD �• 4P. y .� R �' r•r a. '•1 0. a rD Q O ro ry S p R I^— a O; N O o C rD ro 0. CD w O D G G O O O Ln uv n o. (D m ¢ o c w a a. rD -s N n o* `° a aR n «Y w s va w O o R ro ro o O w Ai m r�D O O r w n , ai n :.: _ rw•r " O rt m O ua-s s b rt 0'Q N R '-C = -s O-. CD Q• w n o p; O cm a' rD n , r~D !� O Q �n R v Res 3 a O n T C C C' qq to C fD �° rRo �. "b y rn� rr �p o UCo :7' y C 7 ° aCa M- n w swn R, C~D A7 w @ rD -1 ro '-[ 'y ro y '[� ..S `* rV1-' `G O ^�+ '� (D ``' IO CSD 'rt - '�' ''3 'J' 19 w w > n g<� a s '0 :z' w m o as a o cn ro rL m o a (D G M 07 - r+'nQq rn "' O In CCD R O (D fl• w Ort 0. rD p r -r C rt p ,",s Z, @ cD n rn w a rt v n rD %r a =• Qa. m y m �'. o m o C a w a w v o n b a' o = zv a a C rD a �, o m R. oa n fl. M ws -o (D fD w z w a w C3'Z rn '" o' rr f* ro a o w n v n w w(D rD (D w CD i `_i (D fD 'C a' O �• .a R ^++ (p rar "3 ro C R• „@,� G y rL rD rL rD rD rD 10 v w a' ° w °" o C as 03 rL o 7" ° °, (D n n - 'C n rD o a t° CD o ro a� `G i' m as 7 w 9 T, m=- HCD n ._ gm R o � (° w (an � � ti (Eolao � a `� ", � rD (D 03 It o f° n 'Y (n C 4 CA C '•� [�D (~D ?' `C �z., �7t y '� ro M y ., w -r (D - n -. -a co CL 0w a 0. 4 G O N P' E. ro c rS p r- a @ _ 7 cn w �rm O. CD pq p, 0. _ r•r vOi cn @ S ° vR, O ; 'b (D '`C R 7• D n rD 7 a' rt w S '. S7 7 J4 'LS U) rD �n m r0, 'a p CLC G w '-s w a O � ,T rt a' =' O. v-' n m rr O arts p�j y rl) �"' R. 'C R r@ ' [n a' C77 O y N (D w ,� CD 0 �• rD rL 7 p, O '�' n 0.M W to rnr 2 O- �_ T 'a Ell M Ln ro e En M m �' w' P- -^ ''3 @ rD �. C 9 a tin C n O '.* rroD �' n ¢.. 'O ,C (D G rob � ro a �. �' a m = O w a n qa m~ CD O w a rD 0 R rt u, rD r -L cL rD O n rrta �. to ro ^y s C w O n n rDO. rD ~ (D T O ro R n rr a n 4' cn w (�D n5 Q- d w rD M 0. R ° 7� G :� a n aq n a O m w �• @ �, rD n o fl a rD y ro sa a w m w n G m w y a n R �-� `G 'r O y w N 7 n n R a" 0. w O . .n cin r%' '� O ro cOii rC-r CRD (D a' ,�'"+ y O w C. '-t ((D ro 7 "O C 'CS n `a'� 7 O w roi <_ :L cn rn V" Arai rt CD 0 C G O O G. M r' Cn o (o p y rOn a O NO = a; ..G O' O O ro �• a s y w w [wi5 O �, d 7 O Drti a rD rD m W LAm r* r„ w G 1C rD aj (DY (o rD m o w x 0IEL y' o `�, (moo C 7 (o aao m n w ° -3 a a❑ 7d ° 8 U7G Cn fl• , a .O ro C CD �' `C y �'. rD O C QS Ow rD w 7 rt * '*. ^Ri O O. CD CD C' �-- p -t a a R• N ti a a rn Ln G. @ (� R crq R O k O a G cm O W O" O Z bq O rA rC•r QQ- rw-,r rar `•I � p' ro p En cn rLin a y 9..S�t CDD CL N (D a (D .D rip N CD A'• rD C, R m rD b n O (D -3 Q• 7 rro w rD C fl; In � Oq ro � (D ° Ln 0 O m R C ❑. C �ro Sfl o o -1 ° ro a CD rb VI a m CD c r+ r3 Ln O (D N 1+ I rt V) rGD O N a rt ' ((DD w N n C a' v ❑ G r$ G. w w t� CGD y w" m rD o (Mo > = w C w (n r0r w wy ° ((D a a(RD�.w D (n o C CCD ro a F �I n (D Ili b 3 O u x FU W to C C cC Rs Ln ru O D 6 v F-! •� as C R y qj }O.+ ,b41 71 O ro 'O 6 lu 7 V u C O Q .0 CLL -0 cu ro ¢, C 7C s' -4 i co ^d .0 v me s0. +. Fes•, ) .0 O i N C T� GJ V u OJ 4 O u U O O a 3 4b0� eAv � -clrz > vi r D O d •Y u O a u u 5 U Q) Q L N m W-p ami ¢Cs C a 9} y +C+ L Ul to �^ d � a C cC O,g [�.� vCi O vC, N p O V y v hOp V] M E N 0 7 V C fCE V7 a � 6' � L�fS L li�j Q � � r � 3 � Q W 4.1 ~ m o a. r N L 3CJ ap v a w L cs °�' o a m 7 s. v O E Ln P. +� CO y O L P y ydA ry •b L N x. 4 • z0. rC a0 L.. yr y as > a. •� b.0 U'1 .'.�-' r� CC v �--� as Cv ��. I CJ Z N t,N °' N CJ U C6 Y O eu 'yC Z ,+� u A. C ^ u u o p O a Cl. y as w .� u '� � •ta � W OJ " p '� ;,., ?� 9 O u to 'C = ✓7 ) u N Q W �; tC Qy 4' y aj .N O O to D C] � cn C N W q O 4, C .� � � t6 � �• � y . 7:5 Ln Q> 7 c4 O. w 4 v A sem. O y 00 Ou Ln Z Q $n. © C ._ d vC Ln v D x FU d N N W. a / j \ u \ City of Renton Chapter 1. Summary 1.7 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Table 1-3 describes whether there are any residual impacts after application of mitigation measures, and whether these are significant, unavoidable, and adverse. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 1-63 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Table 1-3. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Chapter 1. Summary Resource* Impacts 4.1 Earth There are no significant unavoidable adverse earth impacts. 4.2 Air Quality No significant unavoidable adverse impacts on regional or local air quality are anticipated. Temporary, localized dust and odor impacts could occur during the construction activities. The regulations and mitigation measures described above are adequate to mitigate any adverse impacts anticipated to occur as a result of study area growth increases. 4.3 Water None of the alternatives would have significant unavoidable adverse impacts on water Resources resources, because the redevelopment would likely result in an improvement of runoff and recharge water quality. In addition, the net change in effective impervious area can be adequately mitigated through the self -mitigating features of the action alternatives and through implementation of the stormwater code, as described under Draft EIS Section 4.3.2,and Final E1S_Scr-don 15- 4.4 Plants and No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would occur for plants and animals under Animals any alternative. 4.5 Energy Additional energy would be consumed and would contribute to increases in demand associated with the growth and development of the region. As described in the Utilities Element of the City Comprehensive Plan, it is anticipated that existing and planned infrastructure of affected energy utilities could accommodate growth. Energy conservation features would be incorporated into building design as required by the current City building codes. For the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, HUD encourages public housing authorities such as RHA to use Energy Star, renewable energy, and green construction practices in public housing. As such, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts on energy use are anticipated. 4.6 Noise No significant unavoidable adverse construction or operational traffic noise impacts are anticipated in the Planned Action Study Area with the implementation of mitigation measures noted above. No significant unavoidable adverse traffic noise impacts are anticipated at residences along NE Sunset Boulevard in the Planned Action Study Area per WSDOT criteria, because the noise increase caused by NE Sunset Boulevard traffic is less than the WSDOT "substantial increase" impact threshold. 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 above are implemented to reduce anticipated future traffic noise to levels suitable for residential uses under the HUD criteria. 4.7 Environmental No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are identified at the programmatic level Health throughout the Planned Study Area or for the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea for any of the studied alternatives. Contaminated sites would be avoided during project design when possible; implementing the mitigation approaches described above would minimize or eliminate adverse effects on human health and the environment. 4.8 Land Use Although intensification of land uses in the Planned Action Study Area, including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, would occur and density would increase, this change would be consistent with applicable plans, zoning, and land use character. Plan consistency can be addressed by Comprehensive Plan amendments using the City's legislative process. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse impacts. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 1-64 April 2411 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact -Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 1. Summary Resource* Impacts 4.9 No long-term significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated under Socioeconomics Alternatives 2 and 3,and the Preferred Alternative. R.yravm vr4These alternatives would encourage new development in the both the Planned Action Study Area and the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea that would result in beneficial changes to the socioeconomic conditions. Under Alternative 1, the study area would not benefit from the changes identified for the action alternatives. Instead, the study area would redevelop more slowly and, in turn, economic conditions would improve more slowly. Connectivity would not be improved along NE Sunset Boulevard, and the Sunset Terrace tenants would remain in the existing structures that would continue to degrade. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative, relocation of the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would result in short-term impacts; however, these impacts would be mitigated. The creation of new jobs and spending in the subarea during construction of new developments would result in short-term benefits. 4.10 Housing Housing in the Planned Action Study Area would likely redevelop to some degree to take advantage of adopted plans and zoning. However, the alternatives would allow for the construction of new dwelling units to replace those that are eliminated. Lower- cost housing could be replaced with more costly housing. Implementation of City regulatory incentives and use of federal, state, and local housing funds and programs could reduce potential affordability impacts. Through its regular Comprehensive Plan review cycles, the City could monitor housing trends in the neighborhood and adapt measures to promote affordability. During construction and in the short-term, residents would be subject to construction activities and the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would be required to relocate during demolition and construction. However, relocation assistance mitigation measures for RHA units would mitigate impacts. 4.11 There are no long-term significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to Environmental environmental justice. The action alternatives would result in primarily beneficial justice impacts associated with new dwelling units, new civic facilities and parks, improvements in nonmotorized transportation, and new employment opportunities in the surrounding area. During construction and in the short-term residents would be subject to construction activities and the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would be required to relocate during demolition and construction. However, construction mitigation and relocation assistance mitigation measures (for the RHA units) would minimize impacts. 4.12 Aesthetics With the application of adopted development regulations and recommended mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic impacts are anticipated. 4.13 Historic and The impacts on cultural resources caused by new development associated with any Cultural Resources alterative could be significant and unavoidable, depending on the nature and proximity of the proposed development project. Implementation of mitigation measures set forth in Draft EIS Section 4.13.2 as amended in this Final EIS would identify potential impacts on cultural resources, at which point measures to reduce them to less than significant could be taken. 4.14 The alternatives are expected to contribute to a cumulative increase in traffic volumes Transportation within the study area, which could degrade some roadway operations. The increase in traffic volumes due to activities in the study area is considered unavoidable, but the roadway operation and LOS can be mitigated to meet applicable LOS standards. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 1-65 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 1. Summary Resource* Impacts 4.15 Parks and tinder studied alternatives for the Planned Action Study Area and Potential Sunset Recreation Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, there would be an increased demand for parks and recreation facilities. With the application of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable impacts are anticipated. 4.16 Public Demand for public services will continue to increase in conjunction with population Services growth. With advanced planning and implementation of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to police, fire/emergency medical, education, health care, social services, solid waste, or library services are anticipated. 4.17 Utilities All studied alternatives are anticipated to increase demand for water, wastewater, and telecommunication services. Increased growth in the Planned Action Study Area has the potential to exacerbate existing water and wastewater system deficiencies. However, with application of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. *Numbering f on the resource analysis section numbering t EIS. Resource section numbering for analysis of the Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS differs. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1 66 ICF 593.10 Chapter 2 Proposal and Alternatives 2.1 Introduction This 13raft-FinA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addresses the Sunset Area Community Planned Action, which includes redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and associated neighborhood growth and revitalization (proposal). Sunset Terrace's redevelopment provides the opportunity to evaluate the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood and determine what future land use redevelopment is desirable and what public service and infrastructure improvements should be made to create a more vibrant and attractive community for residents, businesses, and property owners. This chapter describes the proposal and alternatives that are analyzed in this EIS. Clarifications and corrections to the Draft EIS, as well as the Preferred Alternative analysis, are shown in track changes. 2.2 Proponent The Renton Housing Authority (RHA) is the proponent of the proposal's primary development action, redevelopment of the existing Sunset Terrace public housing community. 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 the [National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which includes NEPA lead agency responsibility. As the entity responsible for public service and infrastructure improvements for Sunset Terrace and the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood as well as regulating private neighborhood redevelopment, the City is the proponent of the broader Planned Action that would streamline local permitting and environmental review under Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 43.21C). The City implements SEPA and NEPA and is performing joint NEPA/SEPA environmental review in this EIS. The City, in partnership with RHA and other agencies, intends to use federal funds from several HUD programs to help finance proposed project activities. Such programs may include Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing (HOPE VI), the Choice Neighborhoods Appropriations programs, or other programs. 2.3 Project Location The Sunset Terrace public housing community is generally bounded by Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE on the north, NE 10th Street on the east, NE Sunset Boulevard (State Route [SR] 900) on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west (Figure 2-1). Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2 ICF 593.10 ICF Figure Planned Action Study Area iNURNATiONAI Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives The Sunset Terrace public housing community is part of the Sunset Area Community neighborhood. This broader neighborhood is the Planned Action Study Area considered in this EIS; it is generally bounded by NE 21st Street on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7th Street on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west. The Sunset Area Community neighborhood is part of northeast Renton and is also known as or referred to as the Highlands area (Figure 2-1). The Planned Action Study Area has been broken down into subareas to allow the EIS discussion to distinguish the site-specific redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace property from the broader programmatic actions occurring throughout the Planned Action Study Area. The five subareas are shown on Figure 2-1 and described below. • Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea includes the Sunset Terrace public housing site and adjacent vacant or ne 94 .,...ne RHA -purchased properties being considered for redevelopment into a mixed-use, mixed -income community. This subarea is being analyzed at a site-specific level and is the primary action under review in this EIS for NEPA purposes. • Sunset Mixed -Use Subarea encompasses larger parcels with a mix of uses that are centered on NE Sunset Boulevard (SR 900). • Central Subarea is a multifamily area containing the current Highlands Library. This subarea is adjacent to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment and Sunset Mixed -Use subareas. • North Subarea is made up of lower density residential north of the Central and Sunset Mixed -Use subareas but also includes park and educational facilities. South Subarea is a mostly lower density residential district located south of NE Sunset Boulevard that includes park and educational facilities. 2.4 Proposal Overview The proposal is to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community and promote associated neighborhood growth and revitalization as part of a Planned Action. Redevelopment of the public housing community and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance would encourage redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area through land use transformation and growth, public service and infrastructure improvements, and a streamlined environmental review process. The components of the proposal are described below. 2.4.1 Sunset Terrace Redevelopment The proposal includes redevelopment of RHA's Sunset Terrace public housing community, a 7.3 -acre property with 100 existing units. The units are contained within 27 buildings, which are 50 -year-old, two-story structures, located at the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE. RHA owns additional vacant and residential land (approximately 3 acres with two dwelling units) along Edmonds Avenue NE, GIenwood Avenue NE, and Sunset Lane NE, and the authority proposes to purchase additional property adjacent to Sunset Terrace, along Harrington Avenue NE (which contains about eight dwellings).' RHA plans to incorporate these additional properties into the Sunset Terrace redevelopment for housing and associated services. ' Proposed only under Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternativeas described in Section 2.7. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-3 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Conceptual plans currently propose redevelopment of Sunset Terrace and adjacent properties with mixed -income, mixed-use residential and commercial space and public amenities. Redevelopment would include a 1 -to -1 unit replacement for all 100 existing public housing units, some of which would occur on site and some of which would occur elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area. It is expected that, with the Sunset Terrace property and associated properties owned or purchased by RHA, up to 479 additional new units could be constructed, with a portion of the units being public, affordable, and market rate.? Public amenities would be integrated with the residential development and could include the following: a community gathering space or "third place;" civic facilities such as a community center, senior center, and/or public library space; a new park/open space; retail shopping and commercial space; and green infrastructure. 2.4.2 Other Components of the Planned Action As a result of the planned Sunset Terrace redevelopment, it is expected that private redevelopment in the 269-acre3 Planned Action Study Area would he catalyzed over a 20 -year period. Public service and infrastructure investments that would support both Sunset Terrace redevelopment and redevelopment elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area include planned or anticipated upgrades to NE Sunset Boulevard and other local streets; stormwater drainage systems; neighborhood parks and recreational facilities; and neighborhood community facilities that may offer educational, library, or social services. While some improvements have been anticipated in City plans, some improvements have not been incorporated (e.g., drainage master plan). To recognize proposed capital improvements, the City will make associated Comprehensive Plan amendments (e.g., to the Capital Facilities and Transportation elements) as part of the Planned Action process. 2.4.3 Planned Action Ordinance The City is also proposing to adopt a Planned Action Ordinance pursuant to SEPA. A Planned Action Ordinance, if adopted, would exempt future projects from SEPA threshold determinations or EISs for those projects that are determined to be consistent with the Sunset Area Community EIS assumptions and mitigation measures. By streamlining the redevelopment permit process, the Planned Action Ordinance would increase the likelihood that planned public agency investments would lead to a transformation of the community. The proposed Planned Action boundary is consistent with the Planned Action Study Area boundary shown in Figure 2-1. For the purposes of this EIS, these terms are defined as follows; Public Housing denotes replacement Sunset Terrace public housing units managed by RHA and subject to HUD restrictions. Rent is based on household income, and units typically serve 0% to 30% Area Median Income [AMI]. Affordable denotes housing that requires some type of public sector subsidy. Rents are typically set lower than market rate, units typically serve 30% to 60% AMI, and eligibility includes income restrictions. Market denotes housing developed completely with private sector funds, with no restrictions on pricing or income eligibility. The study area equals approximately 269 gross acres, and the net parcel acres equal approximately 213. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2411 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-4 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 2.5 Background Information This section presents an overview of the regulations and programs that are guiding the Sunset Terrace redevelopment and the Sunset Area Community revitalization, the public process used to develop the proposal alternatives, and the NEPA and SEPA analysis of the proposal alternatives. 2.5.1 Regulatory overview The planned Sunset Terrace redevelopment and expected revitalization of the surrounding neighborhood would take place in the context of the City of Renton's land use plans and regulations as well as other state and federal requirements. RHA has developed concept plans for Sunset Terrace in recognition of the City's adopted land use plans and regulations and in recognition of the purpose and need for the proposal and its ongoing programs. City and RHA planning efforts are described below. 2.5.1.1 Existing Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations The City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations promote a more intense node of mixed-use development in the Planned Action Study Area, with transitional areas of multiplexes and townhomes and single-family dwellings moving away from the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor. Building heights could extend to 60 feet along the boulevard and 30 feet in the townhouse and single-family areas to the north and south. New development is also subject to design standards that address building modulation. Figure 2-2 presents existing Comprehensive Plan land use designations, and Figure 2-3 presents existing zoning. The majority of the Planned Action Study Area, including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, is designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan as Center Village (CV). This designation extends north and south of NE Sunset Boulevard and generally reflects the location of commercial and multifamily uses on larger parcels. Its purpose statement describes the following (City of Renton 2009a): Center Village is characterized by areas of the City that provide an opportunity for redevelopment as close -in urban mixed-use residential and commercial areas that are pedestrian -Oriented. These areas are anticipated to provide medium- to high-density residential development and a wide range of commercial activities serving citywide and subregional markets. Center Villages typically are developed within an existing suburban land use pattern where opportunities exist to modify the development pattern to accommodate more growth within the existing urban areas by providing for compact urban development, transit orientation, pedestrian circulation, and a community focal point organized around an urban village concept. A second designation in the Comprehensive Plan, Residential Single Family (RS), applies to public facilities such as schools and parks and adjacent single-family lots. Its purpose statement descril)es the following (City of Renton 2009a): Land designated Residential Single Family is intended to be used for quality detached residential development organized into neighborhoods at urban densities. It is intended that larger subdivision, infill development, and rehabilitation of existing housing be carefully designed to enhance and improve the quality of single-family living environments." Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2 5 ICF 593.10 City Limits Q Planned Action Study Arm= Future Land Use = Commercial Corridor JM Commercial Neighhorh Center Village Residential Low Density Residential Medium Dei Residential Multifamily Residential Single Famil, N A n Soo t, Feet NE 13TH PL Lu Z +.0 ¢ V) d W ¢ LU ¢ z LU ru 0 cc LU CO NE 1i NE 10TH ST m rn NE 9TH PL J H NE 9TH 5T NE 8TH PL IVE 8rH ST AfE 5ro Pt NE 6rH CIO Source: City of Renton; King County NE 21ST ST NE 21ST ST NE 21ST ST TH PL 17TH ST 11TH PL JE LITH ST OTH PL rn NE IOTH ST NE 9TH ST NE 8TH ST I NE 7TH ST NE 7TH PL ffipxmx�. 'CF Figure 2-2 Existing Comprehensive Plan Lane! Use Designations INTERNATIONAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS City Limits Q Planned Action Study Area Zoning Resource Conservation Residential 1 (R-1) Residential 8 (R-8) Residential 10 (R-10) Residential 14 (R-14) AA Residential Multifamily Center Village Commercial Neighborhood Industrial - Light NE 21ST ST NE 20TH ST NE 19TH 5T NE 18TH ST N A a sao 1,000 4TH ST Feet NE 13TH ST LU z LU a a a w a�°� a N�F� z w 4 LU LU (■ � W NE 10THPL j o NE 10TH 5T o �jm 11111211141"W, .0z NE 9TH PL W NE 9TH ST Z Uj NE STH PL Q z NE 8TH ST o a a ^I NE 6TH pL r NE 6TH CIO 3 Source: City of Renton; King County 3 NE 215T ST 't I z a d z Y K 1ZLU x wig a zip a Y - Cr E 1STH ST 15TH PL 14TH ST W z .+ w Z W ! Z LU Uj o a 3 a 0 X W a 0 ' Cr Z i w w LL. � _ W 0 z az LU LLJ 0 w N� 8 47 0 M z z X v rn m 7t Z ro M r ,n W z LUa 0 0 0 z z NE 21ST ST i I 1 I NE 17TH PL INE 17TH ST U.1 O z O J NE 11TH PL NE 11TH ST NE 10TH PL W z 7 a a a z LU 0 'a NE 10TH ST W 0 Cr 00 NE 9TH ST 2 NE 8TH ST NE 7TH ST NE 7TH PL 'CF Figure Existing Zoning INTERNATIONAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives The Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Comprehensive Plan designation applied to the western extent of the study area has the following purpose (City of Renton 2009a): The purpose of the Commercial Neighborhood designation is to provide small scale, low -intensity commercial areas located within neighborhoods primarily for the convenience of residents who live nearby. Uses should be those that provide goods and services. In addition, a limited amount of residential opportunities should be provided. Implementing zoning is varied under the umbrella of the CV land use designation, including CV, Residential Multifamily (RM -F), Residential 14 (R-14) and Residential 10 (R-10) zones. Corresponding to the CN land use designation is the CN Zone, and the RS land use designation is implemented with the Residential 8 (R-8) zone. The extent and purpose of these zoning classifications is identified in Table 2-1. A majority of the Planned Action Study Area is zoned CV, followed by R-14 and R-8. The Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment subarea is designated and zoned primarily as CV with some R-14. Table 2-1. Zoning Classifications and Extent in the Planned Action Study Area Extent in Net Zone Purpose, Density and Height Acres Center Village The purpose of the CV zone is to provide an opportunity for concentrated 87.4 (CV) mixed-use residential and commercial redevelopment designed to urban rather than suburban development standards that supports transit -oriented development and pedestrian activity. Use allowances promote commercial and retail development opportunities for residents to shop locally. Uses and standards allow complementary, high-density residential development, and discourage garden -style, multifamily development. The CV zone is intended to provide suitable environments for district -scaled retail and commercial development serving more than one neighborhood, but not providing City-wide services. • Minimum density: ZO du/ac. Maximum density: 80 dwelling units per net acre. Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density, • Maximum Height: 50 ft., except 60 ft. if the ground floor of the building is in commercial use Commercial The purpose of the CN zone is to provide for small-scale convenience 1.3 Neighborhood retail/commercial areas offering incidental retail and service needs for the (CN) adjacent area. Uses serving a larger area may be appropriate if they also serve the residents of the immediate area and are compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. This designation is the smallest and least intensive of the City's commercial zones. • Minimum density: None • Maximum density: 4 du/ac; bonus 1.5 times maximum density for assisted living • Maximum height: 35 feet Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement $ 1CF 553.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 2.5.2 Planning and Community Involvement Neighborhood planning in the Sunset Area Community has been extensive and has involved many community members. Recent efforts that contributed to the proposal and alternatives studied in this Dpaft EIS are described below. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2 9 ICF 593.10 Extent in Net Zone Purpose, Density and Height Acres Residential The RM -F zone provides suitable environments for multifamily dwellings. It is 12.1 Multifamily further intended to conditionally allow uses that are compatible with and (RM -F) support a multifamily environment. The RM -F suffix allows for the development of both infill parcels in existing multifamily districts with compatible projects and other multifamily development. Density range: 10-20 du/acre Maximum height: 35 feet; provided 45 feet is allowed when certain amenities are provided such as pitched roofs or underground parking Residential 8 The R-8 zone is established for single-family residential dwellings, and is 48.8 (R-8) intended to implement the Single Family Land Use Comprehensive Plan designation. Development in the R-8 Zone is intended to create opportunities for new single-family residential neighborhoods and to facilitate high-quality infill development that promotes reinvestment in existing single-family neighborhoods. It is intended to accommodate uses that are compatible with and support a high-quality residential environment and add to a sense of community. • Density range: 4-8 du/acre • Maximum height: 30 feet Residential 10 The R-10 zone is established for medium -density residential development that 5.0 (R-10) will provide a mix of residential styles including small -lot detached dwellings or attached dwellings such as townhouses and small-scale flats. The zone promotes opportunities for detached dwellings, as well as small-scale attached housing choices, and high-quality infill development that increase density while maintaining the single-family character of the existing neighborhood. The zone serves as a transition to higher -density multifamily zones. Density range: 4-10 du/acre • Maximum height: 30 feet Residential 14 The R-14 zone is established to encourage development/redevelopment of 58.0 (R-14) residential neighborhoods that provides a mix of detached and attached dwelling structures organized and designed to combine characteristics of both typical single-family and small-scale multifamily developments. Structure size is intended to be limited in terms of bulk and scale so that the various unit types allowed in the zone are compatible with one another and can be integrated together into a quality neighborhood. Project features are encouraged, such as yards for private use, common open spaces, and landscaped areas that enhance a neighborhood and foster a sense of community. Civic and limited commercial uses may be allowed when they support the purpose of the designation. • Density range: 10-14 du/acre (with opportunities for bonuses up to 18 du/acre) and 30 du/acre for public housing • Maximum height: 30 feet Source: Summaries of Renton Municipal Code Title IV du/acre = dwelling units per acre 2.5.2 Planning and Community Involvement Neighborhood planning in the Sunset Area Community has been extensive and has involved many community members. Recent efforts that contributed to the proposal and alternatives studied in this Dpaft EIS are described below. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2 9 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives • Highlands Task Force on Land Use and Zoning. In 2006, the City convened the Highlands Task Force on Land Use and Zoning to review a proposal to modify land use and zoning regulations to help stimulate redevelopment in the area and promote compact urban development. Proposed changes emphasized a mix of residential and commercial uses, a range of housing types, innovative design, transit orientation, pedestrian scale amenities, and a community focal point. After citizen, environmental, and Renton City Council review processes were completed, the Report and Recommendation of the Highlands Area Citizen's Zoning Task Force (City of Renton 2006) was adopted in May 2007. (City of Renton 2010a.) Highlands Phase II Task Force. The City formed a second Highlands Task Force in late 2007 to help the City identify, prioritize, and make recommendations about implementing the adopted vision for the Center Village in the Highlands area. After over a year of intense study and discussion and a public meeting, the Task Force produced the Report and Recommendation of the Highlands Phase 11 Task Force (City of Renton 2008a), which contained two dozen recommendations for City actions to address new improvements to the Highlands area. In early 2009, the Renton City Council adopted this document by resolution and asked the administration to draw up a work program to begin implementing the Phase II recommendations. (City of Renton 2010x.) Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy (CIS). Highlands Phase iI Task Force recommendations involved creating a "third place" or public gathering space, initiating pedestrian and streetscape improvements, advocating for boulevard improvements for NE Sunset Boulevard, and the development of a subregional stormwater drainage facility. In 2009, the City, RHA, Renton School District, and a team of consultants completed the CIS (City of Renton 2009b). This work elaborated on the "third place" idea of the Highlands Phase II Task Force, further tested the ideas with the community and key stakeholders, and came up with nine implementation strategies. The Renton City Council reviewed the final report and adopted the recommendations for community investment on November 23, 2009. (City of Renton 2010a.) Figure 2-4 presents the elements of the CIS study that have been incorporated into the alternatives studied in this oaf EIS. The top priority in the CIS was to support redevelopment of Sunset Terrace. To conceptually plan the redevelopment of Sunset Terrace, RHA selected a development consultant, Shelter Resources, Inc. (SRI), in 2007, and SRI retained an architect to help plan the property. Conceptual redevelopment designs were first prepared in December 2007 by Bumgardner Architects, and have been the subject of RHA board meetings, throughout 2008 to the present, and of RHA resident meetings on June 19, 2009, and July 12, 2010. A public participation plan was developed in August 2010 during initiation of the EIS process, and is intended to guide public outreach efforts for this environmental review process, using proven techniques from past City and RHA outreach efforts. As part of the EIS process, the proposed lfa€t-EIS alternatives including conceptual plans for Sunset Terrace, NE Sunset Boulevard, and other features were presented to the public at a scoping meeting held on September 1, 2010. This scoping meeting was advertised via distribution of 3,700 postcards, posters, and notices to RHA residents, and publication in the newspaper. Meeting materials were made available in English and Spanish, and Spanish translators were available at the public meeting. Approximately 17 members of the public participated in the scoping meeting. The results of the scoping meeting are included in Draft EIS Appendix A. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2 10 ICF 593.10 S13 ldd3S/'dd3N leuld uoPay pauueld AalunwLuo:) eaay jasunS sasodind 2uldo:)S .lol wei2efp > jonnawead poogjogq2laN eajy jasunS b -Z ain2id (6042) eaay Rpn1S 5D lasunS smimmom 'A!n!he pue uopeanaJ Jaj sap!unjJoddo an!ssed pue anll7e jo dlapen a puedxa pue u!ejay - sallllPe3 j Jed pue uolleaJaay azlllln Ja11aI3 -6 'Rl!unwwo?dlpuauj-poo4Jog461au (�/�}J pue alge�llem •%4jfea4 ljaddns of ubiseeAllio dnsa)UuJJo=4ee aj �/ 'sa3lnJas anlUodtlns pue vo!lealam � vo!je3npa'6u!sno4u!luawlsanu!aJpaleJ6alu!Jojq!umioddo- i a6ell!A�I!we3 •g 'sluawala•sapluawe se aln43rvjseJjui• Jalemu,ums lejmeu 4l!m sebqu!I ueulseped pue ell!q d1IJo!Jd amequ3 - _ 'salllunljoddojuawdolanapwPUP sa!llabOA J >!!gnd u!.SjJed Jalemu!eJ„jo wajsSs pajnauuoaJajw ue alnq!Jls!p - J -,sa!Uuawe se alnj3nJ4seljul„Jajemwlojs leJnleu Jaj sag!unlJoddo Jofew uo sNoj- UOIIUala(] JaleMWJOJ5 TL r.= 'ss!u!! _ PUP suolleupsapall!q/ue!Jlsepad Atpo Jd 44im aplau�w jegj,djivawe .l se aJnPnjse/Ju LlaleN4wJols Ielnjeu Joj sa!j!Unpoddo Jofew uo sn coj- swalsAS leJnleN / suollaauuOD UaeJE) •L M rr1 'uopnq!Jluo34s!jle'ue!paw 6u!lue!d 16u!lg6!l le!7ads -', 'je;me4a!e3o! pue uo!jaunj leuo!6aJ gs!nbu!ls!Q - 'sjuawala peoJ a6ejuaj pue fiwpueJq aaoldx3 - ssau!snq pue I!elaJ o7 ssa3m pue Jajwje4� enequ3 - luaw6as lse3 -suo!jwado pue u61sap palua!Jo-ue!nsapad an!17u!ls!Q - 'ue!paw pajueld u! slalpod wnl lja'j- 'sluawleaAl rmmo13 pue sleu6ls'6u!j46il juawaned lepads 41!m umbu!JJeH le u0!l365 lalul - XjiunuJwo] lasunS jo„speoJssol3/lJeaH,- ■ luaw6as ao� 'demaw6 Jofew aupp of uopngpjuaa:sRJV - 'M'O-a papuedxa / lunefpe adols ajeuaj,4asun5 Jo suapJe6 a3eJJal- -ue!paw pue sedj4 laans 411m adempuel pawcqu3 - '61!unwwo:)jasunsolhmale6walsaM- e juaw6as ap!sll!H sluaw anaJd w I 'PA181asun5 '9 lsaJDIIIH - a0eua1JasnoH - loog7s fueluawal3 Puel46!H I aP!sll!H - • SIJed uoj6u!JJeH - (suolleDoj lellualod) suapJeg Xi!unwwoD 5 'a�uewJojlad Joopino - •i[llunwwm JafiJ¢I a4j of lyauag - -sluana Jaglo pup a}uewlojjad Joopjna'uo!jeJga!aa'6uuagle6 Joj weds Ylq!xald - weld D?Ignd - meld WNill 0 'a3ua!uanuoD umled Joj pai!sop uo!leaol •JabeluoJj pejaJ• juau i wwd - •asnexe!dpue6uuagje6i!n!7ajenp3eo1,lueualJo4lue,luejjudwl- ` 'meld P1141411m palw6ajul - (ualleao1 lellualod) amijallasunS le RJeJgil -£ -luawdolahap ateApd of amIua3ul - -suomwp juawdolanap!el!dei pue 6u!u ueld a41 Joj uo!jeJ6alul 6u!o6uo- "sasdleue ad!suagaJdwo:) pajeu!plooD - JCJepunog eajV Apn15 pasodOJd S13 u010y pauueld 7 'sa!llp3ej hllunwww pue suoi13auua3 uaaJ6 ql!m a1eJ6alul - -luawdolanapaJ au... i pall, -0 a�eJJallasun5 + (suollepuawwaaay SID 6WZ bu!leJodJoau+) (IN1931 d mi .� L wnHilw i � r ii r _� Ar. • � R T ra O''W �• IL a I* ` L: '•::9 #esus © a r� 1”— 1E 1044) ISODIN ■ I 011 d r r 1ti 1 ■ t I F ■ ._ SEEr r r +� ■1 zr L V '� r qr . i ! Ir 7 i d, ! R i 1 A lal+ -- � a - ' r ,�. NEW �•!�,� ■ �� mom J. ■ i r A. City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Additional public comment opportunities occurred within a 45 -day Draft EIS comment period extendinu from December 17, 2010, to lanuary 31, 2011. FollowinE direct mail and i)ostina of notices. RHA held a meeting for Sun5et Jgaae residents on lanuaLy 4 2011 at which more than 25 participants attended. After mailing post -cards in English and Spanish, posting notices, and publishing notice in the i local OP3N5paper. a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission at Renton City Hall on Ja,nI,a,ary,,,S. 2011, at which eight persons spoke. During the 45 -day comment period 12 pieces of corre,5pupdQpce were received. Please see Chapter 5 of this final CIS for more information about the Lumments and responses. 2.5.3 Renton Housing Authority Functions, Programs, and Project Planning 2.5.3.1 Renton Housing Authority RHA was established on September 10, 1941, and operates as an independent municipal corporation pursuant to state and federal housing laws. RHA is one of only three public housing authorities in King County, and serves the greater Renton area. Renton is the only city in King County other than Seattle with its own housing authority. The mission of RHA is as follows (Renton Housing Authority 2010a): ...to provide decent, quality, affordable housing in a safe environment to people with low incomes who make Renton their home. Through partnerships with our clients, service providers and other groups, we will responsibly increase and enhance our housing programs while providing opportunities for those we serve to become self-sufficient. RHA directly manages 870 dwellings. Section 8 vouchers allocated to RHA allow the lease of an additional 315 dwellings. Section 8 vouchers in use from other Public Housing Authorities include an additional 477 leased units. RHA's programs receive some of their financial support from HUD. (Renton Housing Authority 2010b.) 2.5.3.2 Sunset Terrace Constructed in 1959, Sunset Terrace is the oldest multifamily public housing complex directly managed by RHA. It contains 100 dwelling units on approximately 7.30 acres. Occupants live in the housing for an average of 5 years. (cropper pens. comm.). The 100 dwellings units range in size as follows: • 20 one -bedroom units, • 36 two-bedroom units, 36 three-bedroom units, and • 8 four-bedroom units. The units, facilities, and infrastructure are antiquated and the project is dilapidated. See Section 2.6.2 for more information. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 13 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 2.5.4 Environmental Analysis and Review—SEPA and NEPA 2.5.4.1 Joint NEPA/SEPA Process This P -r -a4 EIS is a joint NEPA/SEPA document, intended to satisfy requirements of both federal and state environmental statutes. Pursuant to the authority granted by Section 26 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 United States Code [USC] 1437x) in connection with projects assisted under Section 9 of that act (42 USC 14378), the City is the responsible entity for compliance with NEPA (42 USC 4321) in accordance with 24 CFR 58.1 and 58.4. Compliance with the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is being coordinated with NEPA review. Pursuant to SEPA and implementing rules [RCW 43.21c; Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 197-11), the City is the lead agency for the proposal. Preparation of this Draft EIS is the responsibility of the City. The City has directed the areas of research and analysis that were undertaken and has determined that this document has been prepared in a responsible manner using appropriate methodologies. In addition, the City has coordinated with RHA on preparation of the LEIS. The environmental elements analyzed in this Drat EIS were determined through a joint NEPA/SEPA scoping process that extended from August 13 to October 18, 2010. A Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on the EIS scope was published on August 13, 2010, notifying the public of the joint NEPA/SEPA EIS. This notice established a written comment period through September 13, 2010. in addition, a public scoping meeting was held at the Highlands Neighborhood Center on September 1, 2010, where oral and written comments were solicited. Consistent with HUD NEPA rules, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Draft EIS for the Sunset Area Community was published in the Federal Register on September 17, 2010, establishing a 30 -day written comment period regarding the scope and contents of the Draft EIS; this federal comment period closed on October 18, 2010. Draft_EIS Appendix A contains a summary of the scoping process. As a result of the scoping process, three alternatives and the following 17 areas of environmental review are evaluated in this document. • Aesthetics • Earth • Environmental Health • Historic/Cultural Resources • Land Use • Parks and Recreation • Public Services • Transportation • Water Resources • Air Quality • Energy • Environmental justice • Housing • Noise • Plants and Animals • Socioeconomics. • Utilities As noted in the Fact Sheet of this Final Dfafft-EIS, fihi5-the Draft EI5 document ismLa-sbeigcirculated to agencies, organizations, and individuals for a 45 -day public comment period closing on January 31 ,2011 A public meeting on the Draft EIS will also be h6 was held on January 5. 2011. At the conclusion of that period, the City prepared this Final EIS. The Final EIS incorporates Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-14 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives refinements to the proposal that occurre.d after the issuance of the Draft EIS, revisions and clarifications to text contained in the Draft EIS in response to public comments, and responses to written comments and public testimony. The Final EIS will be the environmental document that accompanies Sunset Terrace through the permit processes noted in the Fact Sheet. 2.5.4.2 Previous Environmental Documents and Independent Environmental Review Prior environmental review was conducted for the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent amendments, including the following documents: • Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance, Harrington Square, September 2, 2003; and • Determination of Non -Significance, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments for Highlands Area, November 6, 2006. When appropriate, prior environmental documents were considered in the preparation of this PT -aa EIS. At the time of this GEIS, RHA is considering the addition of a community and laundry building on its Hillcrest Terrace site. As an independent action, it is undergoing its own NEPA environmental review process. Where information is applicable, it is noted in this Drat EIS. 2.6 Purpose and Need for Proposal This section describes why the proposed land use, housing, and infrastructure changes on the Sunset Terrace redevelopment site and elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area are being pursued, and the goals and objectives that will assist decision makers and the public in determining a preferred alternative. The Sunset Area Community developed in earnest in the early 19405 when the U.S. War Department and RHA built worker housing for manufacturing plants to support World War I1. Modest "temporary" homes were constructed with land set aside for schools, shopping, and civic buildings. At the end of the war, RHA sold most of the homes and the agency subsequently built other multifamily public housing and affordable housing in the area, including the Sunset Terrace public housing complex. For several decades, the Sunset Area was a healthy, stable neighborhood. However, times began to change for the Sunset Area as the population and housing aged and young families began to expect larger, newer homes. Homeownership declined, housing maintenance was deferred, social support systems declined, environmental problems increased, and crime escalated. During its heyday in the 1940s and 1950s, a network of public services and facilities including a fire station, schools community centers, and parks and recreation were implemented to support the growing community and are in various stages of remodeling and repair. The City has begun to identify capital investments to improve infrastructure as well as aesthetic and environmental conditions. With a changing population, the City, RHA, and others are reassessing the Planned Action Study Area and how it can be adapted to meet changing community needs and market demand. Sunset Terrace Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-15 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives redevelopment could be the catalyst to spur new housing development and redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area. Businesses along NE Sunset Boulevard could also improve and invest more successfully with additional housing growth in the Planned Action Study Area. 2.6.1 Study Area Conditions and Trends In 1942, during World War II, RHA was provided funds from the U.S. Government to build houses for the defense workers needed at Boeing and PACCAR. In March 1942, money was allocated for 500 permanent and 500 demountable dwellings on 135 acres. Soon after the initial purchase, the land acquisition was expanded to 400 acres, and by the time the war came to a close there were a total of 3,000 family units and 864 dormitory beds. Schools, a fire station, a recreation center, and significant infrastructure improvements were built to support this community. Returning veterans and the families of those who had died in the war were given preferential consideration to buy units. By 1951, about 551 units had been sold, with the rest sold over several years, some for as little as $1,500. Some of the demountable units were purchased and moved elsewhere in Renton and the region. (City of Renton 2008a; Conkling pers. comm.) With an influx of families in the decades after World War 1I, Renton Highlands was a thriving community; however, by the late 1990s the neighborhood was struggling with low investment and deferred maintenance in residential areas and business turnover in the commercial areas (City of Renton 2008a). Conditions have continued to change since 1990. The community is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse, has a greater percentage of the population in poverty, and tenure has shifted further towards rentals. For example, between 1990 and 2000 in Census Tract 254, which includes lands south of NE 12th Street to NE 3rd Street: the area has become more racially diverse with the percentage of minorities increasing from 14% to 31%, • poverty has increased from about 10% to 16%, and • owner -occupied housing has decreased from 42% to 39%. Currently, the PIanned Action Study Areacontains approximately 1,289 dwellings with an estimated population of 2,978 persons.4 Based on transportation model land use estimates, current jobs are estimated at approximately 1,306. More information about socioeconomic trends is found in Section 3.9 of giis bje Draft EIS. 2.6.1.1 Housing and Employment Figure 2-5 shows year built information for all residential and business structures in the Planned Action Study Area. As shown on the map, the majority of residential structures in the Planned Action Study Area were built between 1940 and 1970. Some of the commercial properties were built in that same timeframe, although some are newer. 4 Based on estimates of current dwellings in the Planned Action study area, using King County Assessor Records multiplied by an average household size based on Census Tracts 252 and 254 (2.31). These housing and population estimates exclude Harrington Square. Harrington Square has a total of 217 apartments. The north tower/building with 108 units was completed in 2010 with rentals beginning this summer and the south tower/building with 109 units is scheduled to be completed next year. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 16 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City Limits Q Planned Action Study Area NE 21ST ST Year Built 19.313 - 1940 NE 20TH ST 1941 - 1950 1951-1960 0 1961 - 1970 NE 19TH ST M 1971- 1980 NE 18TH ST 1981-1990 1991 - 2000 M After 2000 NF N A 0 500 1,000 Feet ATH ST NE 13TH PL NE 13TH SST LU z w Q z z La E a LU 4 LU ti JY a NE 10TH PL z� NE 10TH ST m 2 NE 9TH PL y NE 9TH ST w z NE STH PL Q z N� srH Sr 0 'VE 67-H Pt r NF 67-H cIR rSource: City of Renton; King County 3 u � �iz�?f NE 21ST ST z EIsTH sr LA) a x w w z x LU 0 z X N�$�N z O rn d rn x z b rn r Z NE 21ST ST 17TH PL NE 17TH ST w 0 z 0 z r 3 W NE 11TH PL z r NE 11TH ST NE 10TH PL w z LU Q a a w zUj Ui a z a NE 10TH ST a O O cc O NE 9TH ST O z z J NE STH ST I NE 7TH ST NE 7TH PL 'CF Figure 2- Age of Structuress INTERNATIONAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Housing created during the World War II era was intended to be temporary, and many units are reaching the end of their useful life, especially those that have deferred regular maintenance and upkeep. As a result, although the units maybe within the means of many households to own or rent, many are not high quality. (City of Renton 2008b.) The City's land use plans and regulations support opportunities for new and improved housing to revitalize the Planned Action Study Area. The City has also studied means to improve businesses located in the Planned Action Study Area. Based on a 2005 economic study, businesses could be more viable if there was more housing and population that could increase demand and spending for local goods and services. This information helped spur changes in zoning in 2007 to allow for greater density and housing opportunities. Additionally, the City advertised the Renton Small Business Development Center, which offers free and confidential business assistance and is jointly sponsored by the City, Renton Chamber of Commerce, and Renton Technical College. The police department followed up with businesses that had problems with crime, theft, or undesirable customers. The City Council authorized, and the police instituted, additional patrols in this area to address issues related to crime. This also included educational/prevention programs geared to assist businesses and residences. (City of Renton 2008c; Conkling pers. comm.) 2.6.1.2 Capital Investments To improve both housing and business conditions, the City has committed to providing infrastructure improvements in the areas of transportation and mobility (e.g., improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard; sidewalk repairs), drainage, water, sewer, and community services such as parks and recreation and a library. These improvements are intended to improve the visual quality (e.g. boulevard improvements) and address the age and capacity of infrastructure. The City's Capital Investments Program for 2010 through 2015 identify the following funds for planning and improvements including, but not limited to, the following: • NE Sunset Boulevard Corridor Design ($300,000), • Regional stormwater facility feasibility/preliminary design ($200,000), • Water main ($100,000), • Study area sidewalk repairs ($250,000), and • Capital facility construction ($600,000). These 2010-2015 plans are a continuation of prior capital improvement programs; for example, in 2009, the City completed 4,000 lineal feet of sidewalk in the Sunset Area Community (City of Renton 2010b). The City also completed construction of a new fire station and emergency operations center in 2004. 2.6.2 Sunset Terrace Public Housing Conditions and Trends Sunset Terrace, located in 27 two-story buildings at NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue PIE (Figures 2-1 and 2-4), was constructed in 1959 and requires ever-increasing maintenance. Two major domestic water leaks, estimated to have lost 1 million gallons of drinking water, occurred in 2008 within the antiquated utility infrastructure. Sewer lines regularly clog due to shifted and misaligned piping, tree roots, and lack of capacity flow. Each unit is heated with natural gas, and the street -to -unit lines are old and need replacement. Roof replacements have been deferred and are at Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-18 April 2011 Final N EPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives their failing point. Entrance door jams are out of square such that weather stripping is an insufficient sealer. The interior tile floors are of a vintage that typically incorporated asbestos. Walls and ceilings are poorly insulated. Gas-fired furnaces and hot water tanks have reached the end of their useful lifespan. Stairwells do not have enough space for tenants to move in queen -size box springs, and banisters have to be cut and repaired to do so. In general, infrastructure serving Sunset Terrace public housing, as well as the rest of the Planned Action Study Area, was built in the 1940's (e.g. sewer lines), experience leaks in some cases, and have been identified in City plans as a high priority for replacement. As of September 2010, Sunset Terrace housed 279 residents. Of these, 41% (114) were children with an average age of 10 years. The average Sunset Terrace family income was $19.,516. The ethnicity was divided evenly among White, Black, and Asian. (Renton Housing Authority 2010c; Gropper pers. comm.) To address the substandard size and quality of the units and to offer more housing choices, RHA intends to create a new mixed-use, mixed -income community, with a 1 -to -1 replacement of existing public housing units and additional new affordable and market -rate housing units. Most replacement units would occur in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, and others would occur on other RHA -owned properties in the Planned Action Study Area. In addition, RHA has purchased property in the vicinity of Sunset Terrace to address affordable family and seniors housing with support services. Family housing is expected to accommodate households that require larger units and that benefit from proximity to education and social services. Senior citizens make up about 16% of the Planned Action Study Area population. With the aging of the baby boomer generation, RHA and the City foresee a need for additional senior housing with associated elder health services. 2.6.3 Proposal Goals and Objectives The proposal goals and obJectives below guided Jhe preparation Qf Draft EIS AltCLUaUves2 and 3. The compatibility of the Preferred Alternative with the goals and objectives is analyzed in Final EIS Annendix A. 2.6.3.1 Planned Action Study Area Transformation of private and public properties in the Planned Action Study Area (see Figures 2-1 and 2-4) is expected to meet the Sunset Area Community vision, as expressed in the Highlands Phase II Task Force Recommendations (City of Renton 2008a) and the CIS (City of Renton 2009b). • The Highlands is a destination for the rest of the city and beyond. • The neighbors and businesses here are engaged and involved in the community. • Neighborhood places are interconnected and walkable. • The neighborhood feels safe and secure. • Neighborhood growth and development is managed in a way that preserves quality of life. 5 For the purposes of this EIS, senior housing refers to housing that is occupied by persons 62 or older or that houses at least one person 55 or older in at least SD% of the units and adheres to a policy that demonstrates intent to house persons who are 55 or older. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 19 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives • The neighborhood is an attractive place to live and conduct business. • The neighborhood is affordable to many incomes. • The neighborhood celebrates cultural and ethnic diversity. For each of the major components of the proposal, the following specific goals and objectives were developed to be consistent with this vision. 1. Through designation of a Planned Action and infrastructure investments, support and stimulate public and private development. 2. Ensure that redevelopment is planned to conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. Through the Planned Action and early environmental review, accelerate the transformation of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with mixed -income housing and mixed uses together with places for community gathering. This will also be accomplished in part by using this EIS to achieve a NEPA Record of Decision, which will enable RHA to submit a HUD Demolition and Disposition application in 2011. 4. Ensure that the Planned Action covers environmental review of Sunset Area roadway, drainage, parks and recreation, and other infrastructure improvements, and analyze impacts of anticipated private development in addition to Sunset Terrace. Build on previous City, RHA, and Renton School District efforts and current projects. Leverage relationships and partner with existing community outreach activities and resources. Recognize community desires documented in: o Report and Recommendation of the Highlands Area Citizen's Zoning Task Force (City of Renton 2006), o Report and Recommendation of the Highlands Phase II Task Force (City of Renton 2008a), o HighIandsAction Plan (City of Renton 2009c), o Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy (City of Renton 2009b), o Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan (City of Renton 2009d), o Renton Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan (estimated completion date September 2011), o Utility system plans, and o Library replacement (in process). 6. Create a Great Street6 on NE Sunset Boulevard, as described in the CIS, Implement the City Complete Streets policy for the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor and the Sunset Area green 6 A "Great Street" has numerous characteristics, including: accommodating multiple motorized and nonmotorized modes, exhibiting quality urban design and architecture, offering a variety of interesting activities and uses, promoting environmental sustainability, and incorporating design elements that facilitate maintenance. The CIS suggests that the NE Sunset Boulevard"[i]mprovements would create a gateway and sense of place for the area, as well as enhanced pedestrian safety through traffic calming using improved crossings and landscaped medians." Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-20 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives connections,? Extend conceptual design of improvements between the Interstate 405 limited access right-of-way and Monroe Avenue NR and include them in the Planned Action effort. 7. Encourage low -impact stormwater management methods and areawide solutions as part of a master drainage plan to support development. 8. Engage the community in a transparent process using available outreach opportunities and tools successfully used in prior planning efforts. 9. Optimize funding strategies by leveraging partnerships, innovation and sustainable development for a healthy community. Recognize the importance and timing of integrating housing, transportation, infrastructure, expanded economic opportunity, parks and recreation, and the environment. 2.6.3.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment As well as being a key part of the overall Planned Action Study Area revitalization strategy, the Sunset Terrace redevelopment is intended to meet the following goals and objectives. • Replace at a 1:1 ratio the existing 100 Sunset Terrace public housing units: 20 one -bedroom, 36 two-bedroom, 36 three-bedroom, and eight four-bedroom units. Some will be replaced on site and some off site within the Planned Action Study Area. • Provide new affordable and market -rate housing to accommodate a mixed -income community that includes the Sunset Terrace property and nearby RHA- or City -owned sites. • Maximize the visibility and location of the redevelopment as the heart of Sunset Area Community. • Act as a catalyst for improvements and investments in the Sunset Area Community. • Integrate the Sunset Terrace site and residents with the surrounding neighborhood. • Provide amenities to be shared by the Sunset Area Community neighborhood and other Renton residents, employees, and visitors, including a "third place" for all to gather, and park and open space opportunities such as active recreation and community garden space. • Improve the pedestrian realm and connection across NE Sunset Boulevard. • Provide a mix of uses, including residential, open space, and potential for community, civic, retail, or commercial. 2,7 Proposal Alternatives This section provides a description of the Draft EIS aAlternatives_1, 2, and 3. and the Final EIS Preferred Alternative, and identifies key land use and infrastructure elements of each. 7 The term "green connections" refers to public stormwater facility development serving desired new private development as well as public facilities and rights-of-way per the CIS. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPAEnvironmental Impact Statement 2 �1 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 2.7.1 Description of Proposal Alternatives The proposal includes redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and associated neighborhood growth and revitalization. The objective of the proposal is to promote the redevelopment of public housing, implement infrastructure improvements throughout the Planned Action Study Area, and facilitate planning and environmental review for the Planned Action study area. The proposal is reviewed in terms of three four alternatives. • Alternative 1, No Action. The No Action Alternative represents conditions where Sunset Terrace public housing redevelopment would not occur, and very limited public investment would be implemented in the neighborhood (e.g., some community services but no NE Sunset Boulevard or master drainage plan improvements), resulting in lesser redevelopment across the Planned Action study area. A Planned Action would not be designated. The No Action Alternative is required to be studied under NEPA and SEPA. • Alternative 2. This alternative represents a moderate level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area based on investment in mixed -income housing and mixed uses in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, targeted infrastructure and public services throughout the Planned Action study area, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. • Alternative 3. This alternative represents the highest level of growth in the Planned Action study area, based on investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with a greater number dwellings developed in a mixed -income, mixed-use style, major public investment in study area infrastructure and services, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Preferred Alternative. This alternative represents neighborho d grQwth similar to and slightly. less than Alternative 3 in the Planned Action-Studya n investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with a moderate number of dwellings developed in a mixed -income. mixed-use style oriented around a larger park space and loop road. Other su000rtina actions include maior public investment in studv area infrastructure a services and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Each alternative is described in more detail below. 2.7.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 would continue the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications for the Planned Action Study Area, with limited public investment in redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing and in civic and infrastructure improvements in the Planned Action Study Area. With a low level of public investment, private investment in businesses and housing would he limited and would occur incrementally at scattered locations in the Planned Action Study Area. Land use form would largely continue to consist of single -use residential and single -use commercial developments with an occasional mix of uses. The development pattern would begin to transition incrementally from its current suburban pattern to a village center, but, this transition would occur slowly over time due to the relatively low level of investment in public housing redevelopment and Planned Action Study Area improvements. A Planned Action would not be designated and each proposed development would be subject to individual environmental review. Some pedestrian- and transit -oriented development would occur, but it would be the exception rather than the rule, because new development would represent a small portion of the Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 22 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives overall Planned Action Study Area. More piecemeal development could preclude opportunities for leveraging and combining strategies among individual projects. In the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, RHA would develop affordable housing and senior housing with supporting elder day health services on two vacant properties, but it would not redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing property. The City would not make major infrastructure improvements. NE Sunset Boulevard would continue to emphasize vehicular mobility with less attention on pedestrian and transit facilities and limited aesthetic appeal (e.g., sparse landscaping). No changes to non -motorized facilities or transit are expected except for those non - motorized improvements identified in the Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan adopted in May 2009 (City of Renton 2009d). Drainage systems would continue as presently configured; any improvements would be localized, incremental, and in compliance with the City's existing stormwater regulations. The current Highlands Library would be relocated from the Central Subarea to another location in the Planned Action Study Area; since a new site hastad not been selected; as of the Draft EIS in December 2010, this alternative assumes a new community services building in the study area of sufficient size to house a library or other social services. Parks and recreation services would largely continue as they exist today. 2.7.1.2 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 provides for a moderate level of mixed -income housing and mixed uses in the Planned Action Study Area, while continuing the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications for the Planned Action Study Area. Infrastructure and public services would be improved in a targeted manner in the Planned Action Study Area. Stand-alone residential uses and local -serving commercial development would continue but would be interspersed with mixed-use development at identified nodes throughout the Planned Action Study Area such as the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and portions of NE Sunset Boulevard. Densities of new development would occur at moderate urban levels that are pedestrian- and transit -oriented. The environmental review process for development would be streamlined under a Planned Action Ordinance. RHA would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community according to a master plan on properties it currently owns; the redevelopment would allow for new public, affordable and market - rate housing accommodating a mixed -income community. All 100 existing public housing units would be replaced at a 1 -to -1 ratio; some would occur on the current Sunset Terrace public housing property and some elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area; a duplex would be replaced with affordable townhouse units. An estimated 310 new dwellings would be developed in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, with more moderate -density flats and townhomes at a combined density of 40 units per acre, approximately. New public amenities would include civic and community facilities, which may include a single -use library building with a plaza and/or a community services center/office building, as well as ground -floor retail as required by zoning, and a proposed 0.89 -acre park. Senior housing on RHA's Piha site would include supportive elder day health services. NE Sunset Boulevard would be improved to meet the intent of the City Complete Streets standards (Renton Municipal Code [RMC] 4-6-060). improvements would largely occur within the current right-of-way and would allow for signal improvements, expanded sidewalks, greater landscaping, Sunset Area community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental lmpactStatement 2 23 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives new transit shelters and street furniture, pedestrian- and street -level lighting, a bike lane/multi- purpose trail in one direction, consolidated driveways, and a center median with left -turn vehicle storage. No on -street business parking would be available (consistent with current conditions). Natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated in design of streets, parks, and new development. Options for green infrastructure are addressed in Section 2.7.2.4. Active and passive recreation opportunities would be retained and enhanced through coordination between the Renton School District and the City such as through a joint -use agreement. Possible locations for enhancement include a reconfigured Hillcrest Early Childhood Center and North Highlands Park and repurposed public properties or acquired private properties in areas where demand for recreation is anticipated to be higher. 2.7.1.3 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 provides for a high level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area, and also maintains the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications for the Planned Action Study Area. RHA would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community as part of redevelopment of the entire Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea into a mixed -income, mixed-use development according to a master plan. This alternative also includes major public investment in Planned Action Study Area transportation, drainage, sewer, water, cultural, educational, and parks and recreation facilities. This public investment in Sunset Terrace and neighborhood infrastructure and services would catalyze private property reinvestment at a greater scale, and realize the existing permitted zoning uses and density, which would create greater opportunities for market -rate and affordable homeownership and rental housing opportunities, and for local and regional shopping opportunities. Land use patterns would be of an urban intensity focused along the Sunset Boulevard corridor and allow for vertical and horizontal mixed uses. Similar to Alternative 2, environmental review of development would be streamlined with a Planned Action Ordinance. It is expected that, with the Sunset Terrace property and associated properties owned or purchased by RHA, up to 479 additional new units could be created, some of which would be public, affordable, and/or market rate, resulting in a density of approximately 52 units per acre. The existing 100 public housing units would be replaced at a 1 -to -1 ratio. Replacement of the public housing units would occur on the current public housing site and elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area; the duplex units located adjacent to Sunset Terrace would be replaced with townhouse units, some affordable and some market -rate. Public amenities would be integrated with the residential development and could include the following: a community gathering space in a vacated Harrington Avenue NE (at Sunset Lane NE); a new recreation/community center and senior center; a new public library in a mixed-use building; a new park and open space; retail shopping and commercial space; and/or green infrastructure. The civic and recreation spaces could act as a "third place." A "family village" in the North Subarea would provide an opportunity for integrated reinvestment in housing, education, recreation, and supportive services designed to promote a healthy, walkable, and neighborhood -friendly community. NE Sunset Boulevard would be transformed to improve all forms of mobility and to create an inviting corridor through urban design amenities. A wider right-of-way would allow for intersection improvements, bike lanes in both directions, and sidewalks. Improvements to traffic operations at intersections would prioritize transit vehicles; there would also be a planted median with left -turn Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2 24 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives storage, and u -turns. Improved sidewalks and crosswalks together with streetscape elements such as street trees, transit shelters, street furniture, public art, and lighting would promote walkability. Added bike lanes would promote non -motorized transportation. Natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated in design of streets, parks, and new development. Options for green infrastructure are addressed in Section 2.7.2.4. Active and passive recreation opportunities would be retained and enhanced. For example, the family village concept would allow for blending of education services outside the conventional K-12 spectrum such as early childhood education, the North Highlands Park, and RHA senior housing. Joint -use agreements could be forged between the City and the Renton School District to allow for public use of school grounds for parks and recreation purposes during non -school hours. When public properties are no longer needed for present uses, they could be repurposed for parks and recreation. 2.7.1.4 Preferred Alternative An vi nm preferable alternative N t o natural and cultural features is required to be identified, no later than in the Final EIS. Designation of a preferred alternative is optional under SEPA. The City and RHA have identified an environmentally preferred alternative within the range of the Draft EIS Alternatives 1 through 3. The Preferred Alternative provides for: • mixed-use growth and transit and nonmotorized transportation improvements that result in regionally beneficial air quality and energy effects. • a drainage master plan that promotes green infrastructure and improves water quality, • expansion of parks and recreation facilities. and • greater housing and job opportunities. Key features are identified below. The Preferred Alternative provides for growth in the Planned Action Study Area similar to but less than Alternative 3, while maintaining the current City Comprehensivee,1mland use designations and zoning classifications for the Planned Action Study Area,„(`1,c,)y,grgwth in the neighborhood would be about 7% less than under Alternative 3. This reflects the preferred conceptual ,pl��for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelonment Subarea and refinements of a land cauacity analvsis resented in Fina! EIS Appendix B Similar to Alternative 3. the Preferred Alternative includes redevelopment of Sun as major public investment in Planned Action Study Area transpQ,r,t tiM Systems:.- drainage, sewer, and water systemso and cul recreation facilities. This public investment in Sunset Terrace and neighborhood infrastructure and services would „c yzee private property reinvestment at a greater scale, and realize the existing permitted zoning„>4 ses and density, which would create greater opportunities for market -rate and affordable homeownersh p,�rental housing opportunities, and for local and regional shopping opportunities. Land use patterns would be of an urban intensity focused along the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor and would allow for vertical and hQLizontal mixed uses. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3. environmental review of development would ined with a Planned Action Ordinance. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 25 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives HA would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community as cart of redevelopment of entire Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. It would be redeveloped into a mixed -income, mixed-use development according to a master plan, featuring a "central" park of about 2-6.5 acres and _a loop road. With a largerap rk space, the density of the Sunset Terrace development) QUld }fie lower than Alternatives 2 and 3 at 33 units per acre, though some density wQuldl jhift C►t1tti jdr, the subar-ea to -other portions of the Planned Action Shady Area (see further di5j;u55iQKi below). Public amenities would be integrated with the mixed-use development and could contain -the following: a newap rk space, including over a segment of Harrington Avenue NE (at Sunset -Lane NE) to be vacated: a reconfigured Sunset Lane NE along the library that could be used as a plaza: an elder day health center: a new public library in a single -purpose building: retail 5hgj2 2ingand-commercial_space: and green infrastructure. The civic and recreation spaces could aca5 a t "tbicd r1 Similarjo Alternative 3._a family village in the North Subarea would provide an opportunity for intQgral•ed reinvestment in housing education, recreation, and supportive services designed to promote a healthy, walkable. and neighborhood-1'fleOdly_e.QM unity. NE Sunset Boulevard would be transformed, similar to under Alternative 3, to improve all forms of mobility and to_create_an inviting corridor through urban design amenities. Improvements to traffic operations at intersections would prioritize transit vehicles: there would also be a planted median with left -tufa lanes at intersections and two high-volume, mid -block driveway locations. Improved sidewalks and CrR54Wdjk5, g-ther_with streetscape elements such as street trees, transit shelters. streetfurniture, 1ic aLt. al]d lighling—would promote w lka iit . A multiuse trail along the west side of NE Sunset Boulevard would p[QmQtQ nQumowrized transportation.addition to the multiuse trail on the west side of NE Sunset Boulevard, an eastbound bike lane would run from Edmonds Avenue NE up the hill to the City's bike route on NE 10th Street. Natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated into the design of streets. harks. and new development, similar to under Alternative 3. Several residential streets (designated as green connections) in the neighborhood would be transformed to improve pedestrian mobility, mitigate stormwater it paCt5 (both ter_ uality and flow reductionj. and create an inviting corridor to enhance the_neigbbalbQod. In addition to the green connections projects. the City would implement regional detention/retention improvements to provide advance mitigation .fQ[ fii,turr. increases in impervious area that could result from redevelopment. Options for green infrastructure are addressed in Section 2.7.2.4. Active and passive recreation opportunities would be retained and enhanced. This would incl the_2.C5nacre central park at Sunset Terrace. Due to the relocation and consolidation of Sunset Court EaLk at Sunset_Texrace_as well as the proposed vacation of a portion of Harrington Avenue NE, the cents al.12ark Space is prilaige-d compared to other alternatives to better meet the needs of the i.nurQascd p4ptllation ofthe_neighborhood: with relocation. Sunset Court Park property would then redevelop With_hoijsing uniL%-Additionally, the family village would allow for blending of education services u such as early childhood education, the North Highlands Park. and RHA senior housing. Joint -use agree,ment5 coLl,Id bC fQrged between the City and the Renton School District to allow for public use of school grounds for parks and recrealion purposes during non -school hours. When public properties are no longer needed for present uses, they could be repurposed for other public purposes, such as parks and recreation. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-26 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 2.7.2 Comparison of Features of Proposal Alternatives The following features of each alternative are compared in Tables 2-2 through 2-5: • neighborhood land use, • potential Sunset Terrace redevelopment, • NE Sunset Boulevard improvements, and • stormwater management. Each of these features, as well as other public service and utility improvements, is further described in following the tables. The thrQQ levels of shading correspond to the three Draft EIS alternatives, as shown below. The thick outline corres,pQ,ads with the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 1 (NQction) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative: thick border around features of Alts -J. 2. or-! Sunset Area Community Planned Action Aprfl 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement Z 27 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Table 2-2. Alternative Development Matrix—Neighborhood Land Use Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Land Use Form and Location Housing Employment Public Facilities, Services & infrastructure Development Pattern Supports Interconnection/ Walkability Alternative 1: No Action Redevelopment , Stand-alone commercial: clustered Multiplex Redevelopment Small Retail Civic Uses- e.g. Community Center, No improvement complexes Redevelopment Senior Center, and/or Library an single Stand4oneimmmerclal.duomW MultipleuRedetelopment StemilRetaE Civic Uses -eg.CommunityCenter, purpose sites complexes Primarily residential: urban wale, Vacant Infill Development Retail Lot Consolidation Civic Uses- - e.g. Community Center, Pedestrian -oriented stacked Rat and/or townhouses purpose saes Senior Center, and/or Library development: minimize with structured parking. Retail Lot Consolidation Civic Uses - -eg. Community Center. integrated into mixed use development setbacks, promote public Senior Center, and/or Library development minimize realm, structured parking Horizontal Mixed use Homeownership Shopping Center New parkland to support increased Transit -oriented Opportunities Redevelopment residential capacity, development: density Homeownership Shopping Center New parldand to support increased Transit -oriented supports, transit integrated Vertical Mixed Use Rental Opportunities Localserving retail & Parks & Recreation: Integrated with services Master Planned Development Vertical Mixed Use Urban Intensity Focused Around Market Rate Regional serving retail & Parks & Recreation: Optimize Key Nodes, e.g. Sunset Terrace, services services City/School Facilities Urban intensity Focused Around Institutions Regi onalservingretail & Parks& Recreation: Optimize Key Nodes, e$. Sunset Terrace, Urban Intensity Focused Along Affordable City/School Facilities Parks& Recreation: Integration with Institutions Corridor: Sunset Boulevard Regional Drainage Facilities Urban intensity Focused Along Affordable Mixed Income Parks& Recreation: Integration with Land Use Pattern Supports Low Impact Corridor: Sunset Boulevard Regional Drainage Facilities Development, Green Streets Mixed Income Land Use Pattern Supports Low Impact Development Green Streets Sunset Terrace Education - Spectrum of Ages Redevelopment Family Village Redevelopment Integrated Social Services Alternative 3: High Intensity Improvements Stand-alone commercial: clustered Small Retail No improvement complexes Redevelopment Primarily residential: urban stale, stacked fiat and/or townhouses with structured parking. Urban Intensity Focused Around Key Nodes, e.g. Sunset Terrace, Institutions 446005a nifipt_iml06':: !�91et Padlltlex R �a�t Ink �a1D'rainaueBidlhfea'C,r-, ':�' Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-28 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 Sunset Terrace Education - Spectrum of Ages Redevelopment , Family Village Redevelopment Integrated Social Services Alternative 2: Mid -Range Intensity Improvements Stand4oneimmmerclal.duomW MultipleuRedetelopment StemilRetaE Civic Uses -eg.CommunityCenter, No improvement complexes Redevelopment Senior Canter, and/or Library on single purpose saes Primarily resddentiat:urban scale, VanntinflllDevelopment Retail Lot Consolidation Civic Uses - -eg. Community Center. Pedestrian-orlented stacked flat and/or townhouses Senior Center, and/or Library development minimize with structured parking. Integrated Into mixed use development setbaclp, promote public realm, structured parking Horizontal Mixed use Homeownership Shopping Center New parldand to support increased Transit -oriented Opportunities Redevelopment residential capacity. development: density supports, transit integrated Vertical Mixed Use Rental Opportunities Local serving retW & Parks & Recreation: Integrated with services Master Planned Development Urban intensity Focused Around Market Rata Regi onalservingretail & Parks& Recreation: Optimize Key Nodes, e$. Sunset Terrace, services City/School Facilities Institutions Urban intensity Focused Along Affordable Parks& Recreation: Integration with Corridor: Sunset Boulevard Regional Drainage Facilities Mixed Income Land Use Pattern Supports Low Impact Development Green Streets Sunset Terrace Education - Spectrum of Ages Redevelopment Family Village Redevelopment Integrated Social Services Alternative 3: High Intensity Improvements Stand-alone commercial: clustered Small Retail No improvement complexes Redevelopment Primarily residential: urban stale, stacked fiat and/or townhouses with structured parking. Urban Intensity Focused Around Key Nodes, e.g. Sunset Terrace, Institutions 446005a nifipt_iml06':: !�91et Padlltlex R �a�t Ink �a1D'rainaueBidlhfea'C,r-, ':�' Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-28 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Table 2-3. Alternative Development Matrix—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Neighborhood residential infill Disperse townhomes and Third Place incorporated into apartments new retail Bu ild Sunset Terrace Site to zoning Flexible Community Ser 4ces capacity Center CommunityCenter Close portion of Harrington as Ottiee green street/open space Transpo Ne,b[wja=u=s: Improved bus stops, carsharing, and bike storage New affordable and market rate Focus density at Sunset Blvd/ New rainwater park Green connection/ bioSwale New stand alone Highlands units (250-350) Harrington intersection and along Harrington Library at Sunset Terrace north on Harrington �:t r t ;, '+li r.:. Vie, ,.;,� } .,. L tq `k Use townluDmes to transition to Third Place Plaza with civic or New hillside path on Sunset } - t .�' residential neighborhood community building Blvd east of Harrington- Office Street Network, Housing Development Urban Form Sunset Terrace Amenities Pedestrian Realm Non -Residential Development Alternative 1: No Action Transpo Hub: improved bus t ( Infill on vacant RHA properties No Improvement No improvement No improvement None 1:1 Public Housing replacement Focus density along Sunset New open space, e.g. active, Improved intersection and Neighborhood Retail {101) units) Blvd garden, other crossing at Sunset Blvd and Harrington New affordable and market rate Focus density at Sunset Blvd/ New rainwater park Green connection/ hioswale New stand alone Highlands units (250-350) Harrington intersection and along Harrington Library at Sunset Terrace north on Harrington New affordable and market rate Use townhomes to transition to Third Place Plaza with civic or New hillside path on Sunset New Mixed -Use Highlands units (450.550) residential neighborhood community building Blvd east of Harrington Library at Sunset Terrace Neighborhood residential infill Disperse townhomes and Third Place incorporated into CIose portion of Harrington as office apartments new retail green street/open space Build Sunset'rerrace site to zoning Flexible Community Services Transpo Hub: improved bus capacity Center stops, carsharing, and hike storage Community Center Alternative 2: Mid -Range Intensity Improvements Infl6 on vacant RHA properties No improvement Focus density along Sunset No improvement New opensliaee,eg- active, No improvement Improved interseMon and None Neighborhood Retalt 1:1 Public Housing replacement (100 units) Blvd garden, other crossing at Sunset Blvd and Harrington New affordable and market rate Focus density at Sunset Blvd/ New rainwater park Green connection/bioswale New stand alone Highlands units (250-350) Harrington Intersection and along Harrington Library at Sunset Terrace north on Harrington New affordable and market rate Use townhomes to transition to Third Place Plaza with civic or New hillside path on Sunset New Mixed -Use Highlands units (450-550) residential neighborhood communitybutlding Blvd eastof Harrington Library at Sunset Terrace Neighborhood residential infill Disperse townhomes and Third Place incorporated into apartments new retail Bu ild Sunset Terrace Site to zoning Flexible Community Ser 4ces capacity Center CommunityCenter Close portion of Harrington as Ottiee green street/open space Transpo Ne,b[wja=u=s: Improved bus stops, carsharing, and bike storage New affordable and market rate Focus density at Sunset Blvd/ New rainwater park Green connection/ bioSwale New stand alone Highlands units (250-350) Harrington intersection and along Harrington Library at Sunset Terrace north on Harrington �:t r t ;, '+li r.:. Vie, ,.;,� } .,. L tq `k Use townluDmes to transition to Third Place Plaza with civic or New hillside path on Sunset } - t .�' residential neighborhood community building Blvd east of Harrington- Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-29 ICF 593.10 Office Flexible Community Services Center Transpo Hub: improved bus t ( stops, carsharing, and bike storage Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-29 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Fable 2-4. Alternative Development Matrix—NE Sunset Boulevard Traffic Capacity and Community Based Design Access Management Operations Improvements Pedestrian Walkability Amenities Bikes Transit Enhancements Measures Alternative 1: No Action No improvements No improvements No Improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements Optimize traffic signal Pedestrian supportive Preserve existing street Bike route signage New shelters Consolidate driveways timing signals (countdown heads trees and audible signals) Left turn storage Improved side street Plant new street trees in Narrow inside lanes, widen Special design of transit Curbed median to restrict lengthened to meet design sidewalk connections to landscape strip along outside lane to zones throughout the left turns from driveways year LOS intersections corridor accommodate bikes corridor Including paving, shelters, street furniture. Traffic signal Pedestrian refuges in Use special paving for Narrow lanes, stripe a bike Special concrete bus pad in Directional felt -turn interconnection and median crosswalks lane (requires WSDOT roadway at transit stops pockets mid -block coordination approval) Widen to add Business Narrow lanes and reduce Use special paving within Provide multi -use trail New local transit service Provide U-turn Access/Transit Lane crossing distances intersections along the corridor. connecting across SR900 to accommodations Community Center/I.1hrary Hillside walk paved path Way finding and signage and planting Multi -use trail along project Incorporate Art corridor Realign skewed Garden/Art Trellis intersections and reduce crosswalk distances Comfortable separation of Benches, trash and pedestrians from vehicle recycling receptacles traffic (landscape buffer) Widen sidewalks to meet Improve corridor roadway Complete Streets lighting minimums (8 ft sidewalks and 8 ft landscape strips) Special pedestrian scale Iighting Surveillance cameras for increased security and/or emergency response. Alternative 2: Mid -Range Intensity Improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements No Improvements No improvements No improvements Optimize ttaf8cslgna) Pedestaim supportive preservetotstwilistreet Bike Mute signage New shelters Consolidate driveways timing signals (countdown hrods trees and audible signals) Left turn storage Improved Edda dreet Plant new street trees in Narrow inside lanes, widen Spada] designoftranstt Curbed median to restrict lengthened to meetdealgn sidewalk connections to landscape strip along outside lane to Zones throughout the left turnsfromdrlveways you LOS Ittxrseetlans corridor accommodate bikes corridor Including paving; shelters, street furniture. Traficsignai Pedestrian refuges in Use special paving for Narrow lanes, stripe a bike Special concrete bus pad in Directional left -turn interconnection and median crosswalks lane (requires WSDtTP roadway at transit stops pockets mid -block coordination approval) Widen to add Business Narrow lanes and reduce Use special paving within Provide multi -use stall New local transit service Provide U-turn Access/fransitLane crossing distances intersections along the corridor. connecting across SR900 to accommodations Community Center/Library Hillside walk paved path Way Boding apdI signage and planting Mu9N-nsetmilalongproject 1ncarporateAlt corridor I Reaiignskewed Garden/Art YdlIs intersections and reduce crosswalk distances I Comfort" separation of Benches, trip said pedesttiansfromveHlde ravAlingrec"des UWk (landscape buffer) Widen sidewalks to meet Improve corridor roadway Complete Streets lighting minimums (B ft sidewalks and 8 it landscape strips) Special pedestrian scale lighting Surveillance cameras for increased security and/or emergency response. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2 30 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Traffic Capacity and Community Hased Design Access Management Operations Improverneras Pedestrian WalkabiliLy Amenities Bikes Transit Enhancements Measures Alternative 3: High Intensity Improvements Na improvements Na impnovements No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvemenLs Optimize traffic signal Pedestrian supportivePON : New shelters 1Cad�oiillatL - timing signals {countdown heads r.y ..ai a 1 and audible signals] _Ahz,r ;; La ttettatortgE Irvprnvedsidestreet W;1 w[dea SP1 C sidewalk connection to r{91k ; �.�g �.y - 19+; T6n8gijlralt$1ti11iC. tLe. deft Cull?$ ve year r intersections eortldor,k cariklorindaditi�pa►hty shelters, meet fte t![utR. TraBiCdgllalPedestrian refuges to USBspaelal.p feo 14 lute$SOlpoahike $pedal concrete box ad En DIrIGYdOtlBile�Ltem Intercondwidonattd median tx'osxwaalks - ►ane#iegWrWWSDDT roadway attrandt pvckeLsmid-gTodc " coontnatlon iPpr4+Wl Widen to add Business Narruwlanes and rednpe 'Use spedopaving wEddn protdemnitl-nse#reil "_ - New localtrattsitsendce Providetd.wm Access/Traosit Lane -, /,408S1t1 diatenoas inbe(Seet4mg _ - aloin t*corridor. Cotutectdng across SR900 to aeaBtnmodations I,i�Ipwca ILLIM llerliilaz COmmmnity Center/Litrrary - Hillsidewalk paved path Way Anding and slguage and planting Multi -use trail aioag pro er . Incorpyratie Art.. - mrridar .. ltealigns6wed, Mlm Garden1. Art Trift ietericnsandredgce ':., 0- ralkduncesi CnesapaaH¢aof �eudLeAtra�hatrd Sunset Area Community Planned Action 31 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 553.10 City of Renton Table 2-5. Alternative Development Matrix—Stormwater Management Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Parcel -Based Harrington Street Green Rainwater Harvesting for Stormwater Sunset Terrace Conveyance Flow Control BM Ps in Water Quality Treatment Open Space/Sub-regional Requirements Stormwater Techniques Improvements In ROW ROW BMPs InROW Facilities Alternative 1: No Action Meet Code Requirements Meet Code Requirements Meet Code Requirements No Improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements On-site Onsite Incentivise Great Incentivize Green Downspout Disconnection Rebuild Curb & Gutter Permeable Pavement Media Filter Vaults Rainwater Parks (e.g. rain Stormwater Sidewalks Sidewalks gardens} gardens] Infrastructure Retrofits Require Green Raingardensfor Bioretention Bioretention Swales Bioretentionplanters Regional Detention Ponds Stormwater Residential Units Swale/Planters with Curb Sioretatdonplanters Regional Detention Ponds Stormwater Infrastructure where SWAM/Pianters a ith Curb Openings Infrastructure where Infiltration Is Feasible Openings Infiltration Is Feasible Require Green Permeable Sidewalks Build/Rebuild Storm Bioretention Planters with Rain Gardens in medians Underground Detention Stormwater Build/Rebuild Storm Drain Pipes Detention Underground Detention Stormwater Infrastructure including Drain Pipes Detentinn Infrastructure including non -infiltrating practices non -infiltrating practices Allow Fee In -lieu of Cisterns for Residential Rain Gardens in medians Permeable Pavement SportsReld/Play Field Providing On-site Units Rain Gwdensinmedians Permeable Pavement Water Quality Treatment Detention (detention Detention water Quality Treatment Detention [detention during wet season only) Green Parking Lot Green Roofs Develop narrow street Allow parcel Stormwater New Rainwater Park at Standards Develop narrow street standards to reduce treatment within ROW Sunset Terrace standards to reduce impervious coverage SunsetTerrate Raingardens for Residential Units Ai d ,:. Permeable Pavement ivN.�` Water Quality Treatment C�IC}}fit • Underground Detention Rainwater Harvesting for Irrigation Use Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-32 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 Harrington Street Green Rainwater Harvesting for Connection Irrigation use Rainwater Harvesting Alternative 2: Mid -Range Intensity Improvements Meet Code Requirements Meet Code Requirements No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements On-site On-site Incentivise Great Downspout Disconnection Rebuild Curb &Gutter Permeable Pavement Media Filter Vaults Rainwater Parks [e.& rain Stormwater Sidewalks gardens} Intrastrtttttire Retrofits Require Green Rainprdensfor Bioretention BioretentionSwales Sioretatdonplanters Regional Detention Ponds Stormwater Residential Units SWAM/Pianters a ith Curb Infrastructure where Openings Infiltration Is Feasible Require Green Permeable Sidewalks Build/Rebuild Storm Bioretention Planters with Rain Gardens In medians Underground Detention Stormwater Drain Pipes Detentinn Infrastructure including non -infiltrating practices Allow Feeln-lieu of Cisterns for Residential Rain Gwdensinmedians Permeable Pavement SporurLeld/Playrield Providingomsite Units water Quality Treatment Detention [detention Detention during wet season only) Green Parking Lot Green Roofs Develop narrow street Allow parcel stormwater New Rainwater Park at Standards standards to reduce treatment within ROW SunsetTerrate Impervious coverage Harrington Street Green Rainwater Harvesting for Connectlim Irrigation Use Rainwater Harvesting Alternative 3: High Intensity Improvements Meet Code Requirements Meet Code Requirements No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements On-site On-site Incentivize Grenn Downspout Disconnection Rebuild Curb & Gutter Media Filter Vaults Stormwater Infrastructure Retrofits Raingardens for Residential Units Ai d ,:. Permeable Pavement ivN.�` Water Quality Treatment C�IC}}fit • Underground Detention Rainwater Harvesting for Irrigation Use Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-32 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton 2.7.2.1 Neighborhood Land Use Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives To determine future growth scenarios for the next 20 years, a land capacity analysis was prepared for each alternative using assumptions similar to the King County Buildable Lands methodology. See Draft EIS Appendix B and Final EIS Appendix B. Generally, the analysis considers acreage that is vacant or that may redevelop due to low floor area ratios and/or age of the structure as well as the relative value of the property according to King County Assessor's data. Based on retaining the current land use plan and zoning while varying the location and mix of dwellings and jobs, the alternatives produce different future growth estimates. Each would affect different amounts of property. • Alternative 1 assumes that about 16% (35 acres) of the 213 net acres of Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop. • Alternative 2 assumes that about 32% (68 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop. • Alternative 3 assumes that approximately 40% (84 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop. • The Preferred Alternative assumes that approximately 40% (84 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop: The number of dwelling units and jobs under each alternative is compared in Table 2-6. Alternative 1 provides the least growth and Alternative 3 the most growth, with Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative in the middle. The Sunset Mixed Use Subarea would include the most residential and employment growth under all four three alternatives. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-33 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact -Statement 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Table 2-6. Summary of Land Capacity—Net Additional Growth above Existing -2030 Dwelling Preferred Subarea Units/Jobs Alternative 11 Alternative 21 Alternative 31 Alternative Potential Sunset Dwelling units 168-1752 310 479 266 Terrace Jobs 493 164 182 79-1178 Redevelopment Sunset Mixed Use Dwelling units 1,109 1,052 1,509 1.481 jobs 410-652 1,728 2,875 2.802 Central, North and Dwelling units 206 296 518 592 South jobs 152-213 273 273 M Total Study Area Dwelling unitsD 1,483-1,490 1,658 2,506 2.339 Net Growth Populationf�4 3,430-3,442 3,830 5,789 5.403 Employment SF 251,700 844,351 1,310,113 4.247.444- 1,259.9448 Jobs6 611-9147 2,165 3,330 1 3.154-3,1928 The GEIS technical analysis for transportation, water, and sewer models studied two more net units in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under Alternatives 1 and 3, and a slightly different mix of dwellings and jabs in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under Alternative 2 (12 more dwellings and 38 fewer jobs). These differences are negligible and represent a less than 2% difference across the Planned Action Study Area. 2 The lower range represents proposed concepts on RHA's two vacant sites based on funding applications GUFFeRtly iB .-.,.,,cess The upper range represents the results of a land capacity analysis. 3 The estimate is based on a 90%/10% housing/employment split between residential and service uses; the housing/employment share based on example proposed developments prepared for RHA's two vacant sites in the Sunset Terrace subarea. 4 Includes 217 dwellings and approximately 8 jobs associated with Harrington Square. The first building was constructed in Summer 2010, and the other is under construction to be completed in spring/summer 2011. 5 Applies an average household size of 2.31, an average of two census tracts 252 and 254. 6 Includes retail, service, and education jobs. The lower figure shown is based on a commercial employment rate of 400 square feet per employee for retail and service jobs. If applying a commercial employment rate of 250 square feet per employee, the employment would equal the upper range. This latter figure is more similar to Renton Transportation Zone assumptions. 8 The lower figure assumes less commercial jservice space: whereas. the higher iucludgs more commercial/service space. The Fjngl EIS studies the lower number of jobs (38 fewer) in the technical analysis for transportation, waterand sewer models though this is considered a negligible difference from he upperr ua.)captured in the range of the EIS analysis for all alternatives. These increases in dwellings and jobs associated with the Planned Action are illustrated in Figures 2-6 through 2-8. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-34 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Figure 2-6. Additional Growth by Alternative-2030—Revised Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Figure 2-7. Additional Dwellings under Each Alternative by Subarea-2030—Revised 3ooa 2500 2000 - 1500 - 1000 500 — 4 - - .......... Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alt ■ Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ■ Sunset Mixed4Jse Subarea ■ Central, North and South Subareas Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-35 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Figure 2-8. Additional Permanent Jobs under Each Alternative by Subarea-2030—Revised Table 2-7 shows total population, housing, and jobs adding net growth in Table 2-6 to existing development. As described above, Alternative 1 provides for the least growth and Alternative 3 the most. The Preferred Alternative is similar to but slightly less than Alternative 3 (about 5% less considering total growth). Table 2-7. Existing and Total Growth --2030 Planned Action Studv Area Total Alternative Population Dwellings jobs Existing' 2,978 1,289 1,306 Alternative 1 6,417 2,778 2,220 Alternative 2 6,808 2,947 3,471 Alternative 3 8,768 3,796 4,636 Preferred Alternative i'. j 6.381 3.b28 4.460-4498 ' Dwellings are based on King County Assessor 2010 data. Population estimated using a household size of 2.31, an average of census tracts 252 and 254. jobs are based on transportation model estimates for 2006. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 36 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ECF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 2.7.2.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea In the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, Alternative 1 would allow infill growth on vacant land, whereas Alternatives 2 and 3.And thpt tive would transform the subarea into a mixed-use, mixed -income development. The conceptual plans for Alternatives 2 and 3 are shown in Figures 2-9 and 2-10. Figure 2-11 presents the concep,tualp1ga-f2r th,Q Preferred Alternative. It should be noted that for all alternatives. the glans—including land uses. building footnrint circulation layouts. and other features—are conceptual. As planning progresses from conceptual to more detailed building and construction plans, there may be variations D:Q,m,_ e co.11ggpts (for example, see Final EIS Appendix C for variants of the Sunset Terrace redevelopm=lp,1ans that are similar to the Preferred Alternative and within the range of EIS alternatives). FuLUEe rcfined plans will be considered consistent with the alternatives studied in this EIS provided LbQ (9,a14ires are in the range of the alternatives and associated environmental analysis. Alternative I represents lower bookend of this range and Alternative 3 the upper end of this rangPwith Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative in the middle of the range. Alternative 1 would only develop buildings 1 through 4 and 11, as shown on Figure 2-9. The anticipated land use mix, dwelling unit types, community amenities, and phasing and relocation are described for each alternative below. Land Use Mix While housing would be the predominate use in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under all alternatives, the alternatives also include mixed-use elements to varying degrees, such as civic uses and in some cases retail and office. Alternative 1 proposes predominantly apartment -style dwellings with some townhouse dwellings on RHA's western vacant site (Edmonds -Glenwood site) and senior housing on RHA's eastern vacant site (Piha site). See Figure 2-9 for locations of these sites. Enriched senior housing services, including elder day health for off, -site patients, would be part of an approximately 12,500 -square - foot facility on the ground floor of the eastern vacant site. The existing Sunset Terrace public housing complex would remain in place with no changes. Alternative 2 proposes apartment -style dwellings along NE Sunset Boulevard west of Harrington Avenue NE, mixed commercial and civic uses with residential dwellings east of Harrington Avenue NE, a central court of townhomes, and a 38,605 -square -foot (0.89 -acre) public park to the central - north. An office building is planned at 11,000 square feet, which could accommodate public or private offices (e.g., RHA headquarters, if moved). Retail space is assumed at 2,500 square feet. Community service uses are estimated at 26,000 square feet in the central part of the subarea and could house a variety of community or social services and/or a library; another 12,500 square feet would house the senior enriched services described for Alternative 1. About 88 public housing units would be replaced on the existing Sunset Terrace public housing site and 12 would be replaced on another site(s) in the Planned Action Study Area. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-37 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 rli- �: UK i IF I i ' I RHA's Piha site f �N Multifamily: Flats Multifamily, Townhouses - Civic/Community Services - Retail/Commercial/Mixed-Use Active park/open space Passive open space Passive open space: plaza 6,momm%mmummol 100' 200' of 400' N Figure 2-9 MI T H U N Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Concept—Alternative 2 Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS Till 14 ' ! 1 LJ I 3N B^b SPUO(UP3 II$ iI 6PiP n i �Z� l� z I o m Ln +1 a,, w N 5 Q � LQ � w t :; LL -±:!a Q w I 4-1 N C EL C3 O Y V �a E Q QJ ? � C L E v C Q V V) m Ln Y 0 n_ I RA ~ o E C q C N m o >R'$'$'#'e a 3 ---- - i`k-,.a a.xt,=go ora Till 14 ' ! 1 LJ I 3N B^b SPUO(UP3 II$ iI 6PiP n i �Z� l� z I o m Ln +1 a,, w N 5 Q � LQ � w t :; LL -±:!a Q w I 4-1 N C EL C3 O Y V �a E Q QJ ? � C L E v C Q V V) m Ln Y 0 n_ I RA ~ o C q C Till 14 ' ! 1 LJ I 3N B^b SPUO(UP3 II$ iI 6PiP n i �Z� l� z I o m Ln +1 a,, w N 5 Q � LQ � w t :; LL -±:!a Q w I 4-1 N C EL C3 O Y V �a E Q QJ ? � C L E v C Q V V) m Ln Y 0 n_ W1 r I i � r .. I /;F ir b={" f - - I . - Olt,/g I \ < I j' r J f - I I I _J Multifamily: y Multifamily: Townhouses - Civic/Community Services - Retail/Commercial/Mixed-Use Active park/open space Passive open space 0' 100' 200' 300' 400' N Passive open space: plaza Note: The central open space will be designed and programmed at a later date. Considerations would ® Existing buildings to remain include active and passive recreation, community gardens, and community gathering areas. Figure 2-11 MI T H U N Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Concept—Preferred Alternative Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 3 would maximize the number of residential dwellings and apartment -style units along the western boundary where topography allows more views, townhomes in the central area close to the open space, mixed-use retail and housing at the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE and civic uses, which could include a community center, senior center, and/or library (total space 42,000 square feet), west of Harrington Avenue NE. An open space of about 0.25 acre would be located in an open space provided in the Harrington Avenue NE right-of- way (if vacated) at Sunset Lane NE. Most of the 100 public housing units would be replaced within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and some would be replaced elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area, though the ratio has not been determined at this time. The Preferred Alternative would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public bQU Jng community into a mixed -income, mixed-use development according to a master plan, 3&hirb- features a central park of 2.65 acres and a loon road. Key features of Sunset Terrace redevelopment are identified below: • The central park would be larger Alternatives 1 2 and 3. because it assumes the relocation of Sunset Court Park and of Harrington Avenue NE for one block, along with additional land purposed for park space. to creat,e,,;a„ia,rger more versatile space. • The Highlands LibraU wguld be relocated from its present site along NE 12th Street to NE Sunset Boulevard n a single-ouldbe enlarged 15,000 re • The loop road yyQuld occur along Sunset Lane NE and would encircle the park, Alongthe library and _Wixcd.-use building space, the lane could be specially paved and serve as a plaza for special events. • Housing sty1 and residential -only ildin s and townhomes. It is expected that, with the Sunset TerracC ploperty and associated properties owned purchased by RHA, up to 266 additional new units could be create,d,,,,wnuld be public, affordable, and/or market rate. The total 376 dwellings would result in a density,gf,approximately 33 units • The existing 100 public housing units would b,e repl;acQd at a 1 -to -1 ratio. Replacement of the public housing units would occur on the current p,ijblis„h,2using site and elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area. In particular, some potential sftc5, fQE replacement housing include Sunset Court Park (as the park space would be relocated at Suns,Qr,T,C;Irace). RHA -awned propefty along Kirkland Avenue NE, and the existing library site once it is relocated IbQugh another possiblC Use far the library site would be for agency use (e.g., offices. maintenance), • e duplex units located adjacent to Sunset Terrace would be replaced with townhouse units, mae, affordable and some market -rate. • Public amenities would be integrated with the residential „dey,&pment and could include the following: a central park including a vacated Harrington Ay„Pnuc NE (.t Sunset Lane NE), an eWer_day health center, a new public library along a Sunset Lane NE that would Qcfasionally sejXCa_s an active plaza, commercial retail or service space, and green infrastructure, lbr, nark and library./Rlazaas well as the central park could act as a "third]p ace." • RHA's Piha site and Edmonds -Glenwood site would develop with stitior and family housing respectively, similar to Alternatives 1 and 2. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-42 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives o RHA's Piha site would contain senior housing and elder day health services taking access from the "loop road:" the location near the central park and library would provide recreation opportunities for senior residents. o RHA's Edmonds -Glenwood site would contain family housing in both townhouse and Flat styles. The layout of the Edmonds -Glenwood site places the higher -density flats along Edmonds Avenue NE. where higher -density already exists. and the lower -density townhomes along Glenwood Avenue NE more closely matching the character of duplexes. There are two access points for the combined townhome/flat concept: Edmonds Avenue NE for the primary access to the flats and Glenwood Avenue NE forr�ry access by townhome residents. The Preferred Alternative would include site design measures to limit pass-through travel from Edmonds Avenue NE to Glenwood Avenue NE (e.g., traffic calming, parking, and access design). Housing Alternative 1 for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would affect the least amount of property and would focus on infilling vacant land and redevelopment of one duplex on the Piha and Edmonds -Glenwood sites. Alternative 2 would alter the entire Sunset Terrace public housing site, as well as vacant acres, and a duplex, on the Piha and Edmonds -Glenwood sites. Alternative 3 would result in private property reinvestment in townhomes to the north of the Sunset Terrace site in addition to redevelopment of the entire Sunset Terrace public housing site, and the Piha and Edmonds -Glenwood sites. The Preferred Alternative would redevelop the same 1roperties as Alternative 3. The number of acres redeveloped would differ among alternatives as would the density:$ • Alternative 1 would redevelop approximately 170 to 177 dwelling units (a net increase of 168 to 175 dwelling units) on 3.1 net acres, resulting in a density of approximately 55 dwelling units per acre. • Alternative 2 would redevelop approximately 412 dwelling units (a net increase of 310 dwelling units) on 10.3 acres, resulting in a density of approximately 40 dwelling units per acre. • Alternative 3 would redevelop approximately 589 dwelling units (a net increase of 479 dwelling units) on 11.3 acres, resulting in a density of approximately 52 dwelling units per acre. • The Preferred Alternative would redevelop approximately 376 dwellings fa net increase of 266 dwelling units) on 11.3 acres resulting in a densitv of about 33 dwelling units per acre. Whereas Alternative 1 would provide for affordable housing only, Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative would provide public, affordable and market -rate housing. Alternative 1 would provide affordable dwelling units, but no public or market -rate dwellings units. Alternative 2 would provide approximately 21% public, 55% affordable, and 24% market -rate dwelling units. a The acres and resulting density are calculated across sites and include portions of the property devoted to non- residential uses including civic and commercial areas. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-43 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives • Alternative 3 would provide approximately 74% affordable and 26% market -rate dwelling units (amount of replacement public housing on site not determined; would be a portion of "affordable" percentage). • The Preferred AlternalivtI 78° public nd affordable, and22% market -rate dwelling units. Lastly, all alternatives would provide flats and townhomes to differing degrees, and housing would potentially include both rental and home ownership, but the portion is not yet known. • Alternative 1 would provide 170 units: eight townhomes and 162 flats. • Alternative 2 would provide 412 units: 40 townhomes and 372 flats, • Alternative 3 would provide 589 units: 32 townhomes and 557 flats, • The Preferred Alternative would provide 376 units: annroximately 35 townhomes and 341 flats. Phasing and Relocation Replacement housing would not be needed for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under Alternative 1, because the existing Sunset Terrace public housing would remain intact; however RHA has committed to providing relocation assistance for a duplex it owns on one lot associated with the Edmonds -Glenwood site (see Figure 2-9 for the location of this site). For Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative. RHA has committed to replacement housing at a 1:1 ratio, consistent with the existing proportion of units by number of bedrooms. Such replacement housing could occur on site and/or off site, as described above. Under any alternative, approval of necessary permits identified in the Fact Sheet (located behind the cover letter) for this Draft EIS and the availability of public financing will determine the timing and type of development activities in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. A key permit approval is the HUD demolition/disposition application associated with the redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community under Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative. Redevelopment of the subarea under Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative would be phased, with vacant sites developing first followed by redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community. During the time replacement housing is under construction, Section 8 vouchers would be used to relocate tenants, as necessary. Relocated tenants would also be offered spaces in the new development. A general sequence of events is summarized below for Alternatives 2 and 3 and is subject to change based on funding opportunities: 1. HUD Demolition/Disposition process completed for Sunset Terrace public housing community: approximately 2011. Buildout of vacant RHA -owned sites completed: anticipated for the Edmonds -Glenwood site between 2011 and 2012 and for the Piha site in 2012. (See Figure 2-9 for the locations of these properties.) 3. Sunset Terrace replacement housing funded and constructed: two phases, with the first phase in 2012-2013 and the second phase in 2014-2015. 4. Sunset Terrace tenants relocated with potential Section 8 voucher strategy during construction phases: relocation starting in 2012-2013 with phasing determined by construction schedule. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-44 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 5. Offer spaces in the new developments on the vacant RHA -owned sites and/or at Sunset Terrace, as applicable, to relocated tenants: post -construction. The Preferred Alternative proposes to redevelop the Potential Sunset CrEafV, Redevelopm n Subarea in five phases Las illustrated in Ap endix_Q; 1. HUD Demolition/Disposition process: a. Completed for Phase I library and mixed use site east of Harrington Avenue NE: approximately 2011, b, Other Demolition/Disposition applications will precede Phases 11 thmug Y, 2. Phase I: Development of family and senior housing on vacant sites as well as relocation of library and development of mixed use buildings: a. Buildout of vacant RHA -awned sites (identified on Figure 2-11): ll Glenwood portion of Edmonds -Glenwood site anticipated for completi.Qn first; _ZQ11- 2012. 2) Edmonds portion of Edmonds -Glenwood site and the Piha site: 2012. b. Between Sunset Lane NE and NE Sunset Boulevard east of Harrington Avenue NE, proposed library site and mixed use site vacated and demolished and initiation of construction in 2012. 3. Phase 11: Installation of public park. in three sub -phases, dates to be determined: a, Area east of Harrington Avenue NE developed as a park. b. Harrington Avenue NE vacation and development of park. c. Glenwood Avenue NE re-routing. and townhomes developed north of park. 5. Phase IV: Development of remaining multifamily and mixed-use buildings fronting NE Sunset Boulevard wcst Qf HarLington Avenue NE. date to be determined. Thehp asing is a best -case scenario based on potential funding, and phases and timing are subject to change based on available resources. RHA public housing tenants would be relocated, such as with a potential Section 8 voucher strategy during construction phases. Post construction. RHA would offer public housing tenants replacement housing in the new developments on the vacant RHA -owned sites, or at Sunset Terrace, or at off-site locations in the Planned Action Study Area, as applicable. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-45 April 2411 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 2.7.2.3 NE Sunset Boulevard Improvements Alternative 1 would include no improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard. Alternative 2 would comply with the spirit of the City Complete Streets standards and improve all modes of travel on NE Sunset Boulevard with minimal changes to the current right-of-way (up to S feet of acquisition). Alternative 3 would fully comply with the City Complete Streets standards and would require the most right-of- way acquisition (up to 13 feet of acquisition) to accommodate planned multimodal improvements along NE Sunset Boulevard. A sample cross section representing Alternatives 1.2. and 3 is included in Figure 2-1247and represents a location west of Harrington Boulevard NE in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea vicinity. The Preferred Alternative would include full compliance with the Citv's Complete Street ordinance with some modification in the portion of Sunset where topography prevents full implementation. At Edmonds Avenue NE and Harrington Avenue NE. the Preferred Alternative would keep the existing curb and 5 -foot -wide sidewalk (no planter), and right- of-way would be acquired from the north side (Sunset Terrace] up to 14 feet. East of 111th Street NE, tberr, appears -to -be Sufficient right-of-way width along NE Sunset Boulevard to accommodate the Complete Street rimprovements encroach into the existing right-of-way. St?. Eigurr, 2-13 fQr ErEfCrjed Alternative cross sections. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 46 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 F+ins W.0 smn W8 To. t L_ TMeh.. EHTM4d La ttnrn 3' F—d gBI'ROW Section A.Alternative 1: No Action r i 49 LSmai T_Qesc - �Inslopmvi F...+;R W.0 WR Tr l lana kAalia Fb T-4 N.k. E bring Iw Raw SectipnA Alternative 2: Minimize ROW Impacts - --- -- Cadre M Txlla ANNEEME 1 R�MCInPa�ee[ Bde WBT—d l,a.p k/ah.e FB Tm I L+wa Bike Sid—dk d. Flmtin� Esutl� 8{' ROW r Section A• Alternative 3: Most Developed Figure 2-12 10 CH2MHILL NE Sunset Boulevard—Cross Sections West of Harrington Avenue NE—Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 o` Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS 1 41 W. APPROXBIATF RKINT-OF-WAY 77 I 8' 17 17 1r 1r Boo 11' s t MLLTI1 USE !LAW" W B 7HRU W13 THRU MANAGED EB TWW ES THRU TRAIL LANE LANE LEFT TURN LANE LANE LANE OR EB MEGAN a" Ex1STIN0 t LANE SIDEWALK �1s r=h --. �l s E7USTINO WALL Section 1: Adjacent to Existing Wall between Edmonds and Harrington AnvRoxrutE RaHr�wAr 1 17 I r 1$' 12' IT 1r ,i' S @ r MULTLUSE Pj.AMTER WB 711RU MI6 THRU MANAGED E& THRU EB TRW EB PLANTER SIOEMM A TRAIL LANE LANE LEFT TURN LANE LANE BIKE LANE 8R MELAKE t DIAN I I Section 2: Between Harrington Ave and NE loth ST 4 — - low APPMXIMAT'E RI .W.CFWAY I 17 r 12, 17 1$• Ir 9-4 1x 8' of I MULTI -M KAHTEA WO TWM INB THRII MMAQED N rARU to THRU PLANTER ODEWALK } ,RAIL LANE LAN! LEFT TURDI LANE LANK I CA MEGAN I Section 3: Between NE 10th ST and NE 12th ST Figure 2-13 10 CH2MHILL NE Sunset Boulevard—Cross Sections West of Harrington Avenue NE—Preferred Attemative qw Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives In addition to changes along NE Sunset Boulevard, Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative would alter circulation patterns by closing Harrington Avenue NE for one block in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Additionally, both --Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative would alter cross sections of some local streets to create green connections. (See Section 2.7.2.4 below.) The potential sidewalk, crosswalk, bicycle, transit, and landscaping improvements, and associated rights-of-way proposals are shown on Figures 2-112 and. 2-153, and 2-16 for Alternative 2. Alternative 3. and the Preferred Alternative, respectively, In addition to changes along NE Sunset Boulevard. tern tive would improve transi amenities along NE Sunset Boulevard to include expanded bus Zoar,5.jnboth directions of travel. Bus zones and existing bus stops could include shelters with adequate light,g�,nd street furniture. Transit stops are located adjacent to pedestrian and bicycle facilities, which encourages We use of alternative modes of travel. Special pavement in the roadwav would clearly identifv transit stops on NE Sunset Boulevar Ecdc5tban-scale lighting would improve pedestrian safety and walkability. Sidewalk connQctions from NE Sunset Boulevard to side streets would be improved, strengthening the connectbdty bCt:vygenthe residential areas and NE Sunset Boulevard. To improve safety for pedestrian„ -s crossing the roadways, tk c Preferred Alternative includes the use of special paving at crosswalks and intersections. SpcciaLpaving can more clearly identify pedestrian areas and alert drivers to proceed with caution, which can contLibiltv, to a safer pedestrian environment. Pedestrian -s upp ortive signals such as count -down heads and audihic signals would be provided to improve fe for pedestrians crossing the roadways at signalized intersections. Other ,ped, ,-Arian-level design amenities such as benches, trash receptacles, way -finding signs, and art would Itiaorporated to encourage pedestrian activity in the Planned Action Study Area. 2.7.2.4 Stormwater Management Alternative 1 assumes no change to public stormwater systems in the Planned Action Study Area. Private development would be required to meet City standards for stormwater management including RMC 4-6-030 addressing the Surface Water Utility. Technical requirements for the design of drainage facilities are contained in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County 2009), adopted by the City with amendments (City of Renton 2010c). Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative beth -include a stormwater strategy that integrates the following palette of options distributed throughout the parcels, rights-of-way, and rainwater parks in public open spaces, all of which would support, sustain, and promote the redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area. • Private property options include rain gardens, porous pavement, downspout disconnection, and cisterns. Green connections include roadside rain gardens, porous pavement, bioretention planters, and conveyance swales. Rainwater parks include rain gardens, porous pavement, underground storage beneath active or passive recreation areas, hydraulically functional landscaping. Alternative 2 represents a "lead -by -example" approach that integrates stormwater improvements to retrofit the publically owned areas for improved water quality, flow reduction and groundwater recharge. Connected rights-of-way would be reconstructed with permeable sidewalks, bioretention Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement Z 49 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives swales and roadside rain gardens in curb bulbs to treat runoff from within the right-of-way and improve pedestrian access and livability. Opportunities include integrating hydraulically functional landscaping and stormwater improvements (e.g., rain gardens and porous surfacing) in public open spaces and facilities to demonstrate sustainable stormwater alternatives; integration of natural infrastructure is not intended to reduce the amount of or access to useable active recreational space. The approach for private property would be to primarily reduce barriers to integrating green stormwater infrastructure. Alternative 3 includes many similar elements as Alternative 2; however, it includes opportunities to expand the stormwater infrastructure within public rights-of-way and spaces to enhance the capacity to mitigate for potential private redevelopment. The enhanced capacity would serve both as advance mitigation for stormwater impacts of the existing developed area (realizing benefits earlier) and as an incentive for redevelopment by providing off-site stormwater mitigation. Opportunities include more aggressive application of green stormwater and conveyance infrastructure in the rights-of-way to receive runoff from redeveloped properties. Additional opportunities include integrated multipurpose regional stormwater facilities with public open spaces that integrate stormwater treatment and runoff reduction within the same open spaces that serve the public; integration of natural infrastructure is not intended to reduce the amount of or access to useable active recreational space. The Preferred Alternative is similar to Alternative 3 and falls within the bookends of Alternatives 1 and 3. Several residential streets (designated as green connections) in the neighborhood could be transformed to improve pedestrian mobility, mitigate stormwater (both for water quality and flow reduction). and create an inviting corridor to enhance the neighborhood. Harrington Avenue NE. including portions of NE 16th and NE 9th streets, has been identif"ie-das a.higb priority green connection r 'e would provide enhanced pedestriaU j;QDDectivitywen Hillcrest Terrace, McKnight Middle School, Sunset Terrace (including the relocated King CounLy Library), Highlands Elem Center. This corridor would be enhanced by narrowing tbrough-traffic lanes to calm traffic, create wide planter areas to accommodate large trees and rain gardens to mitigate stormwater runoff, and create wider sidewalks (Figure 2-17)-. This Project would be implemented as a public infrastructure retrofit project pending_ available fund& lig remaining green connections projects would likely be implemented as reyispd xpadway standards to require incremental redevelopment of the frontage as redevelopmeal Qccurs (constructed either b future vel er r the i depending on ayailabilily of fun In addition to theren connections projects,e City will implemrat Kvgional detention./retention improvements to pr vi dvance mitigation for futureimpervious r that result from redevelop Locations of the re 'opal facilities would include the western margin of the newly created park at Sunset Terrace and/or the northern corner of Highlands Park (beyond the 11 ft ll field). Sunset Area Community Planned Action $0 April 2811 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 Alit AN 3AV3OtJNOA fill.' -^•'_� i. +'�,.. ,�' 1 � �•'� r' ♦ ; '-- 1' '' 3N 3AV 30HNOW ' 1 .� '.� •r • a S , \ ♦ 1 � � __ �.`--.: 1 ''�yr� � r g � tp - �� Y., }r 4 I I r i •� y_ T. C; fes• �, �~ •�^`1�.1 ' l * F`\ m �� *l.� .r�1t '. `. i—•.n 1 fl: 1. i'�,1{i it till 3,M AAV (INICIIA'abi IF 44 �. LL�' >/i { F tl .1R-4— -T•��. I �.. `\ \ .?-\ � -ti.. �r 4p Y4, 1r 4 ,14 Y� •f jl .': � r 4 �.fc i 1 � � ` - � �� '� air' ,Er'� ,` ~"�� ' ,�" i•4(I,�r. '+ AN And NOSb33 Ar I ! '%'•* !•'I �' \�� 4 r• 1`�'1� L • 1 � "I EI�'�I I .' �,_ r� r�/\ �� frrpk �\`�` 1 1 r 1 1FX rH +Iill ♦ 4 a �t '' .. i is ^ � f ; � •/'7 'k ! .�j � y ii . 4e c. t4f P .r ' 'F fi e l , ft 0-1 e W Ell-• } I - R ---•a-- • �N p ,i � �� j 1�^� •�, �1 {.'� � ( � yr. ,/'� 'yam [ '. �, �, �.r, ��• , r Jill.►�: r.�.,4�t'. ��;f�. 3N 3nb SCINON©.AF AN 3AV qOVl ji---- c�. .. .... .. . .r•� { „ ,. - '/I i` ... � �� fid►' �.:f �� yr xol aEro Lu f c' mss' • .. s ' '•1 � _ Y Y � V � a @@•"'� �' 1 � J. � � ''• f � _f{r {i � '� � �4 moi. .. - � -.- 11 V �_ •;' ji "{ 07 N T a OJ f1 L W eD a LL g rL O � U C N IL W C � u Ca a I ca air ca 'A U C 3 LAm L" a Z NV, C z LA lot Ln 4� U1 ,1 11J N 0 0CL a Lu IL l�'- -' • IJ 17—.. LCL 11 1 CL LU -i 3N 9 A 30aNOW d. k 4_4 �• � r1 -�4� !► - _-_ t., 4.'3AV . a 7 r�, l , r `\ \\ l I ,"-ti,r.w�o:.d _3Jr•.•-Z �,I 1 '1 ,'1, ,,_I-� L r {. �• ` t 1 3 N end b . c� N ivA1 �• � ;`� --� �� = � _ . r �� _ c_ 1 - "W tl ;, ',� •r,,.. +7 .. '�f- .k• ..-*I m O _I r It ill+'il \• �; - Iz '' I-� IT'.�r�� r-�71�-rr G ro i S\ [4 t t1[f. • `4�`�nn` I1 Ifjjj - +` y I `L r' _ 7 - � jf ^+' J�_ - �__�l E V) � i -_V� r... ,. ... �J �� , �� \ �\ .k E� . t, � � ?_ .. � �!f,^v J'y-`� �, `•''�� T'- �•P,'k �s'r x i�i+J moi• - 4 cn ane aNVIN81N .� o .. .. •..... , - pqE PL 1. �l {4 , '� f ! I '� _�`� `n n 1 � fir• ;� • �- r. r \ ,tel\'` �\ �.. ! `'1 /�� \n Y It �,1 / - if Til -- 4z 3N 3nb' N. 31 !`t Y•, sE ` o � � .fes \�\� � .l , � , ► I �' �,�+j�,� � F j � \ . � 46 L 3N 3na Z t t7 ON 3 ,S. f r r t 4 IF 3N 3AV SONOW03 Ir k rte' ---7 i 3N 3nb` aN4W©3 l it'll � � � � •.34 1 I�� ^:.1 r . I r ilk Imo.¢ r. fly ' �-�: � �Ir 1L ICD :,. �:. k II •:�_-- ,�. � -.�.� - 001 3N 3AV �OHNOW � �\ t„ F yr�--;. ll.i • � _.I� ___ L r - ' � 1+ I � �r�{ _ � �.•.. �' � I �L - f-_ r • 3N 3AV 302INOW �•s. � ._. _�, -_ .:�� ren .- r. i.r� I _.. ._� ,;,: - i ' moi 3N 3AV (1CFQM Nh7 f h r i = 4 3A 0!�VIAHJN Ar 1 •, � � � ` • 1E - r � moi- � I n � � � . ��\.' � f� .' .�' P t � �1 ' r _ f y 3N 3AV NORMA oil r l� y�l1yl T �' .'tea �l-, _ ' • „ISA. � � \ a 4f ,� %.`�` 140 7 �r nil I 1 Nei Npi wi 114 1 � ,J -lei•:'' ` 3N /1'd SONOWCI3 t, — 3N 3AV ONdWC731 EL UL •5 1 N i fni o v C ; lTf fy _S F 17 99 if - . 4•' ' I ' - � _.1 ` #� fit. � ` - ` /�. � r � 4 � +:.. � � '- FI II ! � �1 � r t , , 3 v_) r O w rV fu Q � J d W ra 11 4- Q a c. nl uu U Z C U iT ru Q f: C ' a a� a� vc c a C C C7C D G V 7 f0 m i- a+ Q c V LU in z alazoll Sunset Boulevard Stormwater Preferred Alternative APPROXIMATE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY 0' 9' S' 10' 11' 10' 5 0 8 8 I I I I 78' PROPOSED ROAD SECTION Collector with Left Turn Lane 3' 8 I �E�N 10' • SIDEWALK RAIN-GAROEN BIKE LANE LANE BI10= 'PARKING' PLANTER' SIDEWALK I I I+ 78' PROPOSED ROAD SECTION . I ' RAIN GARDEN AND PARKINGIPLANTER SECTION. ALTERNATE STREET SIDES Section 1: Collector Arterial, 2 -Lane with Shared Roadway B3' IT S 8' 10, 10' 5' 6' SIg' DEWALK TORM ATE BIKE SB SB NB BI NB KE TORR ATE SIDEWALK IPLANTER LANE LANE LANE LANE PLANTER I 41 I B2' PROPOSED ROAD SECTION I Section 2: 4 -Lane CnIlector Arterial, No Parking F I HT WAY DRIVE LANE POROUS CONCRETE OR PAVERS - PORMSCONCRETE 1'CONCRETE OR PAVERS RIBapN 1'CONCRETE RIBBON NF.;16c' Alley / I larrington Alley NE /Jefferson Alley NE Figure 2-17 c:F42MHILL Green Connections—Preferred Alternative q"p Sunset Area Community Planned Action SIDEWALK RAIN -GARDEN SIRE LANE CENTER LANE HIKE PARKING PLANTER SIDEWALK TURN LANE06 Final NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives The use of flow CgUtEQJ BMPs and otherlow_impact development standards would be implemented wtaexe Feasible and allowed by the -City in accordance with City surface water design standards and other standards. The regional detention/retention improvemt,nU i1ad_g[een connections funding is dependent upon the City obtaining grants from various sourc.,e5 and ,the ;ay ilabili y of City funds, There also is the option that the green connections and the regional detention/retention improvements could be funded as part of the redevelopment projects. 2.7.2.5 Other Public Service and Utility Improvements Parks and Recreation Currently, the Planned Action Study Area contains approximately 22 acres of parks and two neighborhood centers. Renton School District sites also provide recreation and sports fields, although these are dedicated for school use and there is no formal agreement with the City for use of school facilities during non -school -hours. The alternatives represent different growth levels and demand for parks and recreation and different opportunities to meet demand. • Alternative 1. No change to parks and recreation facilities would occur. • Alternative 2. Parks and recreation opportunities include a 0.89 -acre park and a community center at Sunset Terrace, and a reconfigured Hillcrest Early Childhood Center site and North Highlands Park, In addition, there are publicly owned properties, vacant properties, potential pedestrian connections between blocks, a sidewalk network, and proposed green connections that may allow for improvement and/or acquisition to create a coordinated "pocket park" system (Figure 2-1$4). In addition, opportunities are identified in this Drat EIS analysis regarding joint -use agreements between the City and Renton School District, repurposing of public properties, or acquisition of private properties in areas where demand for recreation is anticipated to be higher (see Section 4.15). • Alternative 3. Parks and recreation opportunities include a linear park in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea within the Harrington Avenue NE right-of-way (if vacated) as well as a community center, a joint parks and recreation/education/housing concept at the "family village" (as envisioned and described in the Sunset Area CIS; See Figure 2-153), and green connections that connect a "necklace" of "pocket" parks (see Figure 2-14$). Similar to Alternative 2, opportunities are identified in the GEIS analysis regarding joint -use agreements, repurposing of public properties and/or acquisition of private properties in areas where demand for recreation is anticipated to be higher (see Section 4.15). • Preferred Alternative. Parks and recreation opportunities include a 2.65 -acre central park at Sua5 .j JcrLase and the corresponding_ relocation of Sunset Court Park. The Hillcrest Early ChildboQd Ccater site would _also be reconfigured with North Highlands Park. In addition, publicly owned prg12crJi <5,vacant properties. potential pedestrian connections between blocks. a sidewalk netwQrk and ptgpQ5ed green connections could allow for improvement and/or acquisition to create a coordinated "pocket paLk" �ystem(Figure 2-1 ). Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3. opportunities are identified in the EIS analysis regarding1oial.use.agreements. repurposing ofup blic properties and/or acquisition of private properties in areas where demand for recreation is anticipated to be higher (see Section 4.15). Sunset Area community Planned Action 2-58 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF593,10 City Limits Planned Action Study Area Parcels Green Connections — Sidewalks Pedestrian Connection Opportunity Public and Open Spaces School Renton Housing Authority City of Renton N A 0 500 1,000 Get a a W Ln 0 NE pp��plt s NE 24TH ST Uj RD PL Q INE 23RD ST O NE22NDST W LL LL W NE 21ST ST t�S � A NE- .S'T N1:8TH.ST y W NE STH CT n((r Ip O a5oa�ay.N� Source: City of Renton iz>1 > o z z . x Y1W z� w y a � O z z W r;�P` z z rn 49 NE 24TH CT 4 N NE 22ND PL t^ NE 22ND ST nr rn NE 21ST ST NE 21ST ST LU �s " NE 19TH ST z LU q, 'a F1�TH O LD1 1 W w z LU ~� W W U 9 LC a W dr CL O oC z O i NE 12TH ST NE 11TH PL z W a Q a NE 10TH CTI 0 NE 10TH LN �1 NE 10TH 5T NE 9TH ST NE 8TH ST `z 1 r NE 7TH ST W � z 3 a W Q Z N�6��P� NE 7TH PL LU uz, y J I W y1 Nt3,h0 rM NE 6TH PL C rA NE 6TH ST---+— NE=STIiIPL� �1INC- Ttil=5T Uj z a z LU LU a Cr J C 1CF Figure 2-18 Public and Open Spaces 3N TERNATIONAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SERA EIS Q NE 10TH ST m -1 9TH PL h IN z y +/—NE'9TH-ST.. NE 24TH ST Uj RD PL Q INE 23RD ST O NE22NDST W LL LL W NE 21ST ST t�S � A NE- .S'T N1:8TH.ST y W NE STH CT n((r Ip O a5oa�ay.N� Source: City of Renton iz>1 > o z z . x Y1W z� w y a � O z z W r;�P` z z rn 49 NE 24TH CT 4 N NE 22ND PL t^ NE 22ND ST nr rn NE 21ST ST NE 21ST ST LU �s " NE 19TH ST z LU q, 'a F1�TH O LD1 1 W w z LU ~� W W U 9 LC a W dr CL O oC z O i NE 12TH ST NE 11TH PL z W a Q a NE 10TH CTI 0 NE 10TH LN �1 NE 10TH 5T NE 9TH ST NE 8TH ST `z 1 r NE 7TH ST W � z 3 a W Q Z N�6��P� NE 7TH PL LU uz, y J I W y1 Nt3,h0 rM NE 6TH PL C rA NE 6TH ST---+— NE=STIiIPL� �1INC- Ttil=5T Uj z a z LU LU a Cr J C 1CF Figure 2-18 Public and Open Spaces 3N TERNATIONAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SERA EIS City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Sections 3.15 and 4.15 of UMI)raft EIS address current parks and recreation conditions and potential impacts of the alternatives on parks and recreation in the Planned Action Study Area, respectively. 1)[aflEIS ection 4.15 also identifies opportunities to accommodate park needs including possible acquisition of acreage and construction of amenities to meet the increased population needs. Section 3,15 of tLis Final EIS -addresses potential impacts of the Preferred Alternative on parks and recreation i,j_,the Planned Action Study Area, Schools The Planned Action Study Area includes potential changes to education facilities, which are studied cumulatively with other Planned Action proposals. The Renton School District proposes to upgrade school facilities in the Planned Action Study Area as follows: • Alternative 1. Hillcrest Early Childhood Center would be reconstructed consistent with the Renton School District5ix Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2009-2015 (Renton School District and Greene Gasaway Architects 2008:26-28), and would equal approximately 30,000 square feet similar to its current size. Planned improvements to McKnight Middle School would add approximately 10 classrooms. • Alternative 2. In the North Subarea, Hillcrest Early Childhood Center would be rebuilt as an early childhood education center serving the entire school district. The facility would equal 65,000 square feet in size. Uses would also include social services and recreation. To maximize the limited land area, redevelopment of Hillcrest Early Childhood Center would occur in conjunction with redevelopment of the North Highlands Park allowing shared parks and recreation facilities between the two properties. See Figure 2-1913 for the location of Hillcrest Early Childhood Center and the North Highlands Park facilities. Other changes to McKnight Middle School would be as described for Alternative 1. • Alternative 3. In the North Subarea, the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center site would be combined with the North Highlands Park and RHA senior housing complex site and redeveloped to form a "family village" that offers education for a spectrum of ages, including early childhood education as well as recreation, and family housing. See Figure 2-20476 which shows a visualization of what a family village could look like. Other changes to McKnight Middle School would be as described for Alternative 1. • Preferred Alternative. The family village concept is the same as for Alternative 3, Appendix D contains other variations of the family village that are within the range of the EI5 Alternatives. Community Services Various community services are anticipated under all alternatives and would generally be focused on the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Services could include a senior health services, social services in office or community center space, and/or library services. The current Highlands Library would move to a new location within the city limits, possibly within the Planned Action Study Area. The alternatives assume redevelopment of the library site, and potential new locations for community services, which could include a library. Community service assumptions for the alternatives are as follows. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-60 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives • Alternative 1 would include a 12,500 -square -foot or larger space for senior health services including elder day health in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea on RHA's eastern vacant property and 10,000 to 15,000 square feet of space that could house a library or social services located on a single -purpose site likely in an area well served by circulation and transit, such as in the Sunset Mixed Use Subarea. • Alternative 2 would locate community service space in stand-alone and mixed-use structures, totaling about 38,500 square feet, in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. The spaces would potentially house a senior health services similar to Alternative 1, library, and/or social services. • Alternative 3 would locate a senior center, community center, and, potentially, a library, totaling 42,500 square feet, within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, most of which would occur in a mixed-use format. • The Preferred Alternative would include a 12.500 -square -foot space, or larger, for senior health services including elder day health on RHA's vacant Piha site. a 15.000 -square -foot library. and 9,600 square feet of community service or retail space. Utilities All alternatives would require improvements to utilities, particularly water and sewer to serve the new development in terms of fire flow, water use, and wastewater collection and treatment, with Alternative 1 creating less demand for service, Alternative 3 the greatest, and Alternative 2 within the range. See Draft EIS Sections 3.17 and 4.17 regarding Alternatives 2 and 3 and Final EIS Section 3,17 regarding the Preferred Alternative. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-61 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 JF tLz", C_ ;L1 -al 1, 1� J J L! j.0 -*14*-- VIA- j ■ Publicly owned land (City ofRenton, Renton Housing Authority, Renton School District, U%Tteltral Gert, and ROW) MITHUN 0 600 1200 1800 2400 feet Figure 2-19 Publicly Owned Sites in Planned Action Study Area Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS Community facilites complex: - Early childhood education center • Senior center • Daycare • Community services • Conference rooms • Fitness, arts, etc. - Plaza/ oudoor seating t 6th-8ft-"t`R, O. Wf nior hoysing Commpnitrgardon, Remote, shared parking lot Cottage/ courtyard green housing Artist's drawing of the Family Village concept at Hillcrest Note: This is a conceptual rendering from the Sunset Area Community investment Strategy, and thus subject to change. (Rainwater park/ passive recreation field Children's play area r p� Interioreen pedestrian corridors/ walkways Figure 2-20 MI T H U H Alternative 3—Family Village Concept Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton 2.7.2.6 Planned Action Ordinance Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives The City is proposing to adopt a Planned Action Ordinance applicable to the Planned Action Study Area pursuant to SEPA. A Planned Action Ordinance, if adopted, would exempt future projects from SEPA threshold determinations or EISs when they are consistent with the Sunset Area Community EIS assumptions and mitigation measures. According to WAC 197-11-164, a Planned Action is defined as a project that: • is designated a Planned Action by ordinance; • has had the significant environmental impacts addressed in an EIS; • has been prepared in conjunction with a comprehensive plan, subarea plan, master planned development, phased project, or with subsequent or implementing projects of any of these categories; • is located within an urban growth area; r is not an essential public facility; and • is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative. the City would formally designate the Planned Action consistent with the Planned Action study area in Figure 2-1. The proposal alternatives studied in this Dra€tEIS implement projects identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Sunset Area CIS. The proposal is located within the Renton Urban Growth Area, and proposal elements are not essential public facilities as defined by RCW 36.70A.200. Although a SEPA threshold determination would not be required for future projects within the Planned Action Study Area that meet specific description and parameters, the City would follow adopted procedures to review proposed projects within the Planned Action Study Area through the land use review process associated with each project to determine its impacts and impose any appropriate development conditions. SEPA rules at WAC 197-11-168 require the ordinance designating the Planned Action to include the following: • a description of the type of project action being designated as a Planned Action, • a finding that the probable significant environmental impacts of the Planned Action have been identified and adequately addressed in an EIS, and the identification of mitigation measures that must be applied to a project for it to qualify as a Planned Action. Following the completion of the EIS process, the City would designate the Planned Action by ordinance. The ordinance would identify mitigation, as described in this Draft EIS, which would be applicable to future site-specific actions. Mitigation could include requirements that would apply to all development in the Planned Action Study Area as well as measures that would apply on a case- by-case basis. A draft Planned Action Ordinance is included in Draft EIS Appendix C: a revised draft Planned Action Ordinance tailored to the Preferred Alternative is included in Final EIS Appendix E. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-64 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton 2.7.2.7 Cumulative Growth Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Cumulative impacts are those which result From the incremental impact of the proposals when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The analysis in this DFaft EIS describes the individual impacts of conceptual plans in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, as well as civic and infrastructure improvements (e.g., NE Sunset Boulevard improvements), in the context of cumulative growth patterns expected over the next 20 years in the Planned Action Study Area. This growth in the study area is examined in the context of the City's adopted plans that included growth allocations citywide. 2.7.2.8 Conceptual Plans and Revisions The EIS provides a range of neighborhood growth patterns. Sunset Terrace redevelopment concepts, circulation improvements, drainage concepts, parks and recreation features, utility improvements, and other elements. The EIS alternatives present a range of growth, service, and infrastructure options, with Alternatives 1 and 3 representing the lower and upper bookends, respectively. and Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative falling in between. In the future. the City, other agencies such as RHA, and private property owners may consider land use, public service, and infrastructure projects_thatfall_within the range of the EIS alternatives. Because the EIS analysis covers activities within this range, it can be applied to these future projects if they are consistent with the range of EIS assumptions. 2.8 Benefits and Disadvantages of Deferring Implementation Deferring implementation of the proposals would allow for residential and commercial development to occur in a more scattered manner in the study area over a longer period of time due to lack of substantive civic and infrastructure benefits. In the absence of a catalyst for redevelopment and neighborhood revitalization, economic development would occur more gradually. Benefits of new housing, employment, and civic uses—such as replacement of antiquated and dilapidated housing, greater cohesion of residents, opportunities for healthy active lifestyles, and greater local employment—at Sunset Terrace and in the Planned Action Study Area would not occur. Stormwater improvements would be made in a piecemeal fashion and would not achieve net improvements in Stormwater treatment compared to a master plan approach. NE Sunset Boulevard would continue to lack access management and aesthetic appeal. less mixed use development would provide less reduction in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions at a regional level. Each development would undergo separate environmental review, which would lengthen permit review time. Deferring implementation could result in marginally less traffic and would expose fewer new residents to noise for developments located along the roadway. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-65 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 Chapter 3 Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative This chapter provides a brief impact analysis of the Preferred Alternative described in Chapter 2. The review follows the same structure as Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS where the impacts of Draft EIS Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 were reviewed. Specifically, the environmental topics considered in this chapter include the following: 3.1 Earth 3.4 Plants and Animals 3.7 Environmental Health 3.10 Housing 3.13 Historic/Cultural 3.16 Public Services 3.2 Air Quality 3.5 Energy 3.8 Land Use 3.11 Environmental Justice 3.14 Transportation 3.17 Utilities 3.3 Water Resources 3.6 Noise 3.9 Socioeconomics 3.12 Aesthetics 3.15 Parks and Recreation For each of the seventeen environmental elements, the review is organized as follows: • Impacts specific to the Preferred Alternative are described for the Planned Action Study Area and the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and compared with Draft EIS alternatives as appropriate; and • Mitigation measures specific to the Preferred Alternative are described where applicable. Mitigation measures common to all alternatives are described in detail in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS and summarized in Draft and Final EIS Chapter 1 but are not repeated here. A comparison of the Preferred Alternative with Draft EIS Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 is provided in Final EIS Chapter 1. 3.1 Earth Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. 3.1.1 Planned Action Study Area Potential impacts of all three alternatives discussed in the Draft EIS and the Preferred Alternative are similar and discussed in the subsections below. 3.1.1.1 Construction Impacts Potential earth -related construction impacts include the following: • increases in erosion due to soil disturbance; • requirements for import and export of earth materials; and • increased risk of landsliding due to soil disturbance, changing drainage, or temporarily oversteepening slopes. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3 1 kCF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative The significance of these potential impacts is judged to be relatively low under all of the alternatives for the Planned Action Study Area, including the Preferred Alternative, for the following reasons. • A series of best management practices (BMPs) has been developed and codified over the last decade that minimizes the potential for both erosion and for eroded material to be transported to waterways where it can cause harm. • A relatively small proportion of the Planned Action Study Area is considered either steep slope or erosion hazard (see Draft EIS Figures 3.1.2 and 3.1.3). Much of the existing soils are also glacial outwash materials with a low erosion potential. • With minimal planning and protection, the outwash soils inmost of the Planned Action Study Area could be reused as backfill, minimizing import and export requirements. As noted in the Section 3.1 of the Draft EIS, the outwash limits (see Draft EIS Figure 3.1-1) are believed to be somewhat understated. • The landslide hazard areas cover a relatively small proportion of the Planned Action Study Area. Both the glacial outwash and till soils are generally strong and of low concern regarding slope instability. The significance of these potential impacts is even lower for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea because it contains no geologic hazards and is underlain by glacial outwash materials, which have one of the highest potentials for structural reuse of any geologic deposit within the Puget Sound area. 3.1.1.2 Operation Impacts The primary earth -related impact of operations is the active seismicity of the Planned Action Study Area. The active seismicity means that inhabited structures, including buildings, bridges, and water tanks, would have to be designed to withstand seismic loading. Relative to many other areas within Renton and King County, the Planned Action Study Area is well suited to handling the effects of an earthquake. The soils are not subject to liquefaction, which is the primary cause of damage to buried utilities and other civil infrastructure. Expensive building foundation systems to provide support against settlement or lateral spreading of liquefiable soils would not be needed. The only differential seismic impact in the Planned Action Study Area is that steeper slopes and landslide hazard areas (see Draft EIS Figures 3.1.2 and 3.1.3) would have a slightly higher risk of movement during a seismic event than other areas. 3.1.1.3 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts The primary indirect effect is that the major steep slope, erosion, and landslide hazard areas within the Planned Action Study Area extend beyond the boundaries (see northeast corner in Draft EIS Figure 3.1.2 and 3.1.3). Development on the slope above (inside) the study area boundary could increase the risk of erosion and landsliding downslope (outside) of the study area. The risk of this impact is relatively low because current development regulations limit development in these hazard areas and their buffers. The primary earth -related cumulative effect is associated with the same steep slope, erosion, and landslide hazard area discussed above. Intensive development around this hazard area outside of the Planned Action Study Area by other projects is not currently anticipated but could increase the risk of erosion and landsliding. As explained above, the risk of this impact is low. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact statement 3 ICF 593.30 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative 3.1.1.4 Comparison of Preferred Alternative Impacts with the Alternatives in the Draft EIS As noted above, the earth -related impacts of all of the alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, are of low significance. Because the potential impacts are low for all alternatives, a comparison is not necessary and would be subject to conjecture. Mitigation would be the same as indicated in the Draft EIS. See Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of mitigation measures from the Draft EIS. 3.1.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The potential impacts associated with any of the alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are of slightly less significance than those described for the Planned Action Study Area because there are no geologic hazards within the subarea, and the underlying glacial outwash soils have the highest potential for reuse within the Planned Action Study Area and the lowest potential for erosion of most soil types in the Puget Sound area. 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative. 3.2 Air Quality Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. For each geographic level, temporary construction impacts are addressed as well as long-term operational impacts of land use activities and local traffic increases. In addition, indirect and cumulative impacts of the alternatives' contribution to regional growth, travel, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are addressed. 3.2.1 Planned Action Study Area The Preferred Alternative is expected to have population and employment growth within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3. Because the amount of redevelopment would fall within the bookends of the Draft EIS alternatives, air quality impacts from construction activities, commercial operations, vehicle tailpipe emissions, GHG emissions, and outdoor air toxics, as well as impacts on air quality attainment status, would be similar to those described in the Draft EIS. Although temporary, localized dust and odor impacts could occur during construction activities. However, the regulations and mitigation measures described in the Draft EIS are adequate to mitigate any adverse impacts anticipated to occur as a result of growth in the study area. 3.2.1.1 Emissions from Vehicle Travel As shown in Table 3.2-1, the forecast population and the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) under the Preferred Alternative are higher than they are under Alternative 2 but slightly lower than Sunset Area Community Planned Actian April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3 3 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative they are under AIternative 3. The net increases in VMT forecast as a result of the Preferred Alternative are inconsequential compared with Puget Sound regional VMT and its implied impact on regional emissions and photochemical smog. Therefore, regional air quality impacts caused by population growth and transportation emissions in the study area would not be significant. 3.2.1.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The annual GHG emissions calculated for the Preferred Alternative are based on the future land uses listed in Table 3.2-2. As Iisted in Table 3.2-3, the Preferred Alternative represents a net reduction of 3,907 metric tons per year of regional GHG emissions, which is within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3. Therefore, similar to the impacts under the alternatives studied in the Draft EIS, GHG impacts in the study area caused by the Preferred Alternative would not be significant. Table 3.2-1.Planned Action Study Area Contribution to Forecast 2030 Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPAEnvironmental Impact Statement 3 4 ICF 593.10 Preferred Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative Population 6,417 6,808 8,768 8,381 Planned Action Study Area daily VM TI 146,949 _ .._ . ....... 155,903 200,787 --- --- – — 191,925 Puget Sound region daily VMT2 92,738,880 Contribution to regional VMT 0.16% 0.17% 0.22% 0.21% VMT = vehicle miles traveled 1 Daily VMT calculations are based on 22.9 VMT per capita, the average daily VMT in the Puget Sound area (Puget Sound Regional Council 2010). , 2 Puget Sound regional VMT totals for 2030 for the Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Area (Puget Sound Regional Council 2009). Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPAEnvironmental Impact Statement 3 4 ICF 593.10 a! v a 0 Q Ln LO N a? N O1 O LR wa m on CL. cn a� R w C d' CD dt n n LJ7 47;�L Q O N M 11'] LJ 1 �' n fV D V 'b UD M m N O O O O O O O •� L aan Qf In n n o• N Ll7 O V V34.1 vi V a,}4-�4-1LI 0�1 z '�' bt OR b N ',D N N n OQ N lD c� G7 w Ln S V i b N r� Ln Q co M L Ln m 4 W w � -A M R C CU a a ¢ %D a Q N rn N m 'd La i O n N M N N ctsa 4.1 sn ni y y r' o Oo�+ � c [a Y ti L] -4 i --I OD [� OD M N N Lr) M N N N ay R 0 � U .(D cu N tko CC .� tp � QA � Q' N L to mn � Ln o �� N C. a �CD 0 N �, o alcC bD by 0 yp w O y R 'B bD 1 3 in u �Q oM N N Q Ln H w d O C C C cz m N �I7 m C L � w_ II. O -.1 i M t0 C7 �D N +� ai O LO ? G. LD v dam' � N U N N n C N O N N n F.' k -D Q T CD a —Z bz O N i 7 y bycz q N n co u LO d fq O� O 0 co 00 O co tt C, co d' w L00 N m n N r3 Q, u7 N � N � r_ v CD ODn r rn v Q � n 0 N N CrJ cu C N CD m ON UU LO \O N w n M co CD CO w o N m i.n N n 6+ T� N Nvi O f9 p, y„ t4 y N .� O O v O •� Ln Ln S . L D o Sn tj 3 y �2 6bb es. 0 'O [0 va E -a � F� r- d lu m G roEb .0v nn 0-Z C7 A C4 <" F q. L Z u Q �Q oM N N Q City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative 3.2.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, the Preferred Alternative is expected to result in population and employment growth within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. Because the amount of redevelopment would fall within the bookends of the Draft EIS alternatives, air quality impacts from construction activities, commercial operations, vehicle tailpipe emissions, GHG emissions, and outdoor air toxics, as well as impacts on air quality attainment status, would be similar to those described in the Draft EIS. Although temporary, localized dust and odor impacts could occur during construction activities. However, the regulations and mitigation measures described in the Draft EIS are adequate to mitigate any adverse impacts anticipated to occur as a result of increased growth in the study area. 3.2.2.1 Emissions from Vehicle Travel As shown in Table 3.2-4, forecast population and VMT for the Preferred Alternative are higher than the forecast values for Alternative 1 but slightly lower than the values for Alternative 2. The net increases in VMT forecast as a result of this alternative are inconsequential compared with Puget Sound regional VMT and its implied impact on regional emissions and photochemical smog. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would have a negligible impact on regional air quality. 3.2.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The annual GHG emissions calculated for the Preferred Alternative are based on the future land uses listed in Table 3.2-5 for the subarea. As listed in Table 3.2-6, the Preferred Alternative represents a net reduction of 150 metric tons per year of regional GHG emissions. Therefore, similar to the alternatives studied in the Draft EIS, GHG impacts caused by the Preferred Alternative in the subarea would not be significant. Table 3.2-4.Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Contribution to Forecast 2030 Regional VMT Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement [CF593.10 Preferred Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative Population 658 970 1,361 869 Planned Action Study Area daily VMT1 15,068 22,213 31,167 19,900 Puget Sound Region daily VMT1 92,738,880 Contribution to regional VMT 0.016% 0.424% 0.034°/% 0.021% VMT = vehicle miles traveled I Daily VMT calculations are based on 22.9 VMT per capita, the average daily VMT in the Puget Sound area (Puget Sound Regional Council 2010) z Puget Sound regional VMT totals for 2030 for the Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Area (Puget Sound Regional Council 2009). Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement [CF593.10 c Q L O U �o aM O a�°'� QI {9 fro�++ G R a Q L 'G H tE C C v°, m c L C V3 41 ro C s/a 'ZjaLi as O a 'n N Ln 4 N � � (= e,ON N N a cn N .q. 4a �= V] U p, C O 0 CZ N .0 J3 In o m -0 as L ,., L, 4- �. y?a E t s. ro L Ql aro) 00 M c v .0 C as O ro o Lri r� m Ln Ln a � bo U .a oa cZrq N as VI as C a cu C Or Ln O Q7 0 Y d a1 0 O L 4-1 ate.+ v5 3 �w4.1 �n c v b ro G � �., as � • o y M O L 0 O O O 0 C]�_ •> to d Ln UO] CL, 4� aLi ami ::Jy y c a �I- 0 4'Qd o T2s `° 3 ro L. �, ro y CL E C to c �+ as Y y� VI L ro ++ y C pp r Q, pip C L ro Q. ro Ln d' Ln rl Ln n n Z jE roKi .i Q w n M N � C N lL m V VI 71 Ti c C O L^ N O C aJa, O C N m 7, ro m m Co 4'1 Q [tea C L � � 4a as Li Ln m am m op 1.0 zm -4M Ln cn 1�. a) CO p O '� as L Ln 6'S O n N+' C y 0 O N M 4 n a ro _N r+ m m o 0 o a d m VS _ as 6A C GA � ro co co n C n C C as aj O �,• 'C -a as m O � o C E n E co 1c, O u ro ro 7 - 7 �n d ce U) C. �o aM O QI {9 fro�++ G R a Q L 'G H tE C C v°, m c L C V3 41 'ZjaLi as O E VI C as ' 4a cn .q. 4a �= V] U p, C O 0 CZ N .0 J3 In o m -0 as L ,., L, 4- E t s. Ql aro) .0 C as O w b Ln a � bo U .a oa q as VI as C a cu C Or L" Q7 0 Y d a1 0 O L 4-1 ate.+ v5 3 �w4.1 G � �., as � • o +' a b CZ C !7 - v CL, 4� aLi ami ::Jy y c a �I- 0 4'Qd o T2s `° ro y CL E C to c �+ as Y y� VI L ry d °' E ++ y C pp r Q, pip C '} v o E a aj Z jE roKi .i Q w Z C N � C N lL i O cc m O �c 110 N Ln Q a O J3_ m S, N N 4J 6. H w G 0 V) rV) G w c7 �i C Ln d' vS n N O N 00 .o r- n m us' o Lri 00 ¢ o n N O, n N O N 00 .o r- n m us' o Lri 00 N r-4 d' N O N N rn O n N M M M n r o Ln CD Ch r� N d� Im L m on 3 � G O G •O i .0 GAto ,5�_, Stl 4 CL G bD � by sn j cc v m cd 0 m N 'GQD 4J C4 � CG L,) E --O Z v v E Q1 m cu o . a E d m a E y, c �E n E w 0 w aw C � 7C Ln LL City of Renton 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative. 3.3 Water Resources This section provides an overview of typical impacts associated with urban development and redevelopment, methods for determining impacts, and a land cover analysis summary for the Preferred Alternative. Following the land cover analysis, impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. 3.3.1 Background and Methods Apart from a few vacant parcels, the study area is already developed with mixed residential and commercial land uses, with a high level of impervious surface coverage. Runoff is conveyed via storm drains to surface waters outside of the study area. Impacts on surface water and stormwater would result primarily from changes in the amount and quality of runoff from impervious surfaces in the Planned Action Study Area. Similarly, impacts on groundwater would result primarily from changes in the amount of recharge from the surface area due to the change in impervious surfaces and/or stormwater infrastructure. The improved water quality and quantity controls required by the stormwater code (RMC 4-6-030) for new developments and redevelopment projects over the required thresholds will help reduce the potential impacts of increased impervious area within the study area. Impacts on potential water quality are, therefore, evaluated based on the relative change in total pollution -generating impervious surfaces that would remain untreated (e.g., not redeveloped) as a result of anticipated growth and implementation of the stormwater code. Impacts on downstream flow volumes and recharge are evaluated based on the total net change in effective impervious area (e.g., impervious area not managed by flow -control BMPs) that would result based on anticipated growth and implementation of the stormwater code under each alternative. The spill control required by the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County 2009) for new development and redevelopment projects over the required thresholds will provide additional protection to water quality downstream of the study area. Construction impacts on water resources would be addressed through compliance with Core Requirement #5 for Erosion and Sediment Control in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County 2009), as well as City amendments to the manual (City of Renton 2010), and, if the project results in 1 acre or more of land -disturbing activity, compliance with the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit. Future impervious surface coverage for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, under the alternatives, was estimated based on the conceptual site plans (see Figures 2-9, 2-10, and 2-11). For the remainder of the Planned Action Study Area, the estimated future impervious surface coverage under the alternatives was estimated by assuming that all infill and redevelopment Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3 10 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative projects would generally build to the maximum allowable impervious coverage defined by the zoning. Similarly, the proportion of pollution -generating impervious surfaces (e.g., roadways, driveways, and parking) versus non -pollution -generating impervious surfaces (e.g., building roofs, sidewalks, and patios) was estimated from allowable building coverage by the code and typical recent development as measured through aerial imagery. All new and redeveloped parcels were assumed to trigger all stormwater code requirements for flow control and water quality, which would result in water quality treatment of all pollution -generating impervious surfaces. Because of the density of the study area, flow -control BMPs assume that full infiltration or dispersion of impervious surfaces would be infeasible; however, the minimum percentages, based on site area, were assumed to be implemented. Compared with the Draft EIS alternatives, the Preferred Alternative assumptions for Green Connections and roadways were modified as follows: Street sections for identified "Green Connection" streets were assumed to achieve the City's "complete streets" standards, which were wider than those assumed for Draft EIS Alternatives 2 and 3; and Fewer locations for bioretention planters were assumed within the right-of-way of NE Sunset Boulevard because there are several areas where bioretention/infiltration would not be advised adjacent to a wall. 3.3.2 Change in Land Cover -Preferred Alternative Estimates of land cover changes under the Preferred Alternative are shown in Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 and described following the tables. Table 3.3-1. Land Cover Summary -Preferred Alternative Sunset Area Community Planned Action 11 April 2411 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 Total Total Total Impervious Pervious Total Total Effective Area Area Area PGIS1 Untreated Impervious (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) PGIS1(acres) (acres) Planned Action Study Area 255.40 174.40 81.04 76.44 46.26 165.41 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 12.64 6.1 6.54 1.7 0 3.66 1 PGIS = pollution -generating impervious area. Table 3.3-2. Change in Land Cover Summary -Preferred Alternative Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Effective Impervious PGIS1 Area Untreated PG1S1 Impervious Area Project Area Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)2 Planned Action Study . 13.23(15%) -16.41 -41.84 (-47.5%) 4.24 (2.6%)4 Area ( -18.6%) Potential Sunset Terrace 1.37 (74.9%) -0.13 (-7.1%) -1.83 (-100%) -1..07 (-22.6%)4 Redevelopment Subarea 1 PGIS = pollution -generating impervious area. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 11 April 2411 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative 2 impervious area not directly connected to a stream or drainage system. 3 All areas are expressed relative to existing conditions. See Draft EIS Section 3.3 (Table 3.3-1) for a summary of existing conditions. 4 The net change in effective impervious area within the Johns Creek Basin, excluding mitigation through regional detention facilities, is equal to 2.63 acres. The 2.6 3 acres within Johns Creek Basin would be mitigated by the regional detention facilities described in the text below. Within the May Creek Basin, the net change is equal to 0.54 acre. The net change in effective impervious area for the Preferred Alternative compared with the Draft EIS Alternatives is as follows: • Alternative 1, No Action: 5.29 acres; • Alternative 2: 1.51 acres; • Alternative 3: 0.75 acre; and • Preferred Alternative: 3.17 acres. The Preferred Alternative is in the range of results for the Draft E[S alternatives. It would have less impact than Alternative 1 but greater impacts than Alternatives 2 and 3. The primary reason for differences in effective impervious area under the Preferred Alternative compared with Alternatives 2 and 3 is because of the different assumptions with respect to Green Connections and the NE Sunset Boulevard cross sections detailed in Section 3.3.1, above. Additionally, the 0.5 acre of increased effective impervious surface in the May Creek Basin will be mitigated on site by private developers, consistent with the City's stormwater regulations. The remaining 2.67 acres of increased effective impervious surface within the Johns Creek Basin would be mitigated by the regional detention facilities described below. 3.3.3 Planned Action Study Area Under the Preferred Alternative, new and redevelopment projects are anticipated at an increased growth rate over the No Action Alternative (though the net increase in effective impervious area associated with the Preferred Alternative would be less than that of the No Action Alternative, as described above). The overall anticipated growth pattern for the Preferred Alternative would be similar to but less than that of Alternative 3. This increased growth is anticipated to result in larger roof areas compared with the No Action Alternative but with a potential reduction in total surface parking as a result of a shift to structured parking to accommodate parking needs with the reduced available space, particularly within the areas zoned Center Village (CV). All new and redevelopment projects would be required to provide "enhanced basic water quality treatment" or, if single family, "basic water quality treatment," per the stormwater code. All redevelopment projects would still be required to provide flow -control BMPs to the minimum levels of site or impervious area, as required by the code, where feasible. NE Sunset Boulevard would be reconstructed with up to 14 feet of additional right-of-way. Under this alternative, the amount of pollution -generating impervious surface, equal to approximately 0.6 acre, would be reduced because the center turn lanes would be replaced with pervious medians. The project would require compliance with the code and, therefore, would include bioretention planters to provide water quality treatment. Because the proposed roadway would decrease the total impervious footprint within the right-of-way, no additional flow control would be necessary. Because of slope constraints, including both longitudinal slopes and adjacent walls or steep slopes, bioretention planters are assumed to be lined facilities providing water quality treatment only. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3 12 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative Additional flow reduction is not included in this analysis; however, where feasible, flow reduction will be incorporated in the final design of NE Sunset Boulevard improvements. The Preferred Alternative would also include construction of green connections within portions of the right-of-way. These projects would include retrofitting the edge of the roadways to add a combination of bioretention planters, permeable pavement for parking (or subsurface infiltration beds beneath conventional asphalt), and new sidewalks, also constructed of permeable pavement. Based on preliminary analysis, the assumed performance is to provide for water quality treatment of the full roadway surface as well as flow reduction equal to a 20% to 30% reduction in the flow from the tributary impervious area. Preliminary sections of the green connections based on roadway classification are provided in Figure 2-17. Implementation of the green connections and the NE Sunset Boulevard reconstruction project under the Preferred Alternative is estimated to result in a net reduction of approximately 15.7 acres of untreated pollution -generating impervious area and approximately 3.1 acres of effective impervious area. The resulting net change in pollution -generating impervious area within the Planned Action Study Area (exclusive of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) is estimated to be a reduction of approximately 41.8 acres (48%) from existing conditions. The net change in effective impervious area would be an increase of approximately 3.2 acres (1.9%) from existing conditions. Under the Preferred Alternative, the City proposes to invest in the public stormwater infrastructure by constructing regional stormwater facilities within the study area (Figure 3.3-1). A conceptualization of a regional stormwater facility located in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea is also provided (Figure 3.3-2); while located in the Sunset Terrace subarea it would serve the general Planned Action Study Area. This facility would be designed to maintain active and open recreation space, allowing water to be treated within a series of small, integrated rain gardens that would be distributed along the edge of the proposed "central" park and connect the subsurface to an underground infiltration bed beneath open space. Should infiltration in this location be determined to be infeasible upon final design, flow control would be provided by an underground detention vault. This facility would be designed to mitigate for the additional 2.6 acres of effective impervious area within the Johns Creek Basin estimated to be added by the combined improvements within the Planned Action Study Area due to the anticipated growth under the Preferred Alternative, Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 13 ICF 593.10 N 4E 14TA'ST 0 500 1,000 T Feet E'13TI 7� PL__ F F _T '\. , _F W_ PW . LLI 1.161- LU NE 10TH NE 10TH ST __ -!!--,,,-,.NE4TH L T L 7 --NE 9TH 97 Uj__ 1,-�-NE STH pl: L j ST ir- 0__ L i L NE 6TH -Ar, j 'ZAI 'ij ,E6rH . N r- i -T Source: City of Renton; King County 0 CF42MHILL 401, 41 NS,CR ;ETTE NS CREEK NE' ISTH IPL NE 14TH L ST- Z NE 17TH PL=C �_N E 17TH ST �X NE 21ST ST_" NE 21ST City Limits Planned Action Study Area F A- - L z z NE 11TH ST__ Parcels R RA C, E_ > Regional Stormwater Facility NE 20TH STT, Green Connections LLJ J M1111 Permeable Sidewalk 7E 14TH STI E 9 Alley Woonerf---' NE 7TH ST Green Access LLI z F Green Collector Arterial {# Lanes) Drainage Facility Sub -Basins _z 0 JOHNS CREEK MAY CREEK JOHNS CREEK - SUNSETTERRACE N 4E 14TA'ST 0 500 1,000 T Feet E'13TI 7� PL__ F F _T '\. , _F W_ PW . LLI 1.161- LU NE 10TH NE 10TH ST __ -!!--,,,-,.NE4TH L T L 7 --NE 9TH 97 Uj__ 1,-�-NE STH pl: L j ST ir- 0__ L i L NE 6TH -Ar, j 'ZAI 'ij ,E6rH . N r- i -T Source: City of Renton; King County 0 CF42MHILL 401, 41 NS,CR ;ETTE NS CREEK NE' ISTH IPL NE 14TH L ST- Z NE 17TH PL=C �_N E 17TH ST �X 0 0 z NE 11TH X\ �6 PL F A- - L z z NE 11TH ST__ EEK,-' R RA C, E_ > NEI 10TH PLS I 7 77Z LLJ J —,Z L J z NE 10THST UITaJ�� NE 7TH ST _ zNE 9TH 0- F 0 0 z X\ �6 F A- - L NE 8TH S71. NE 7TH ST Z. L PL Figure 3.3-1 Potential Regional Stormwater Facilities and Green Connections Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final INEPA/SEPA EIS III �'- a ,n• � -zz , .12 �. t EL im Base map provided by M I T H U N ------► Storm Drain Bioretention Swale Detention Vault ® Infiltration Gallery 0 CH2MHILL 0' 100' 200' 300' 400' N [dote: The central open space will be designed and programmed at a later date. Considerations would include active and passive recreation, community gardens, and community gathering areas. Figure 3.3-2 Proposed Storm Drainage Facilities—Preferred Alternative Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative The analysis demonstrates a potential increase of approximately 0.5 acre of effective impervious area within the May Creek Basin due entirely to projected private redevelopment. This analysis assumes that all associated redevelopment within the Planned Action Study Area would be required to comply with the stormwater code; therefore, no additional cumulative impacts are anticipated. Increased impervious area within the May Creek Basin would be mitigated on a site -by -site basis through adherence to the drainage code, which requires matching flow durations from a forested predevelopment condition. 3.3.4 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Impacts on water resources in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under the Preferred Alternative would be less than those of other alternatives studied in the Draft EIS. The Preferred Alternative would have a larger net reduction in effective impervious area within the subarea than even Alternative 3, largely because of the proposed central park. The Sunset Terrace redevelopment would include Low Impact Development (LID) techniques, including pervious sidewalks, rain gardens, and cisterns, to reduce runoff from impervious surfaces. The assumed level of control under this analysis would provide water quality treatment of all pollution -generating impervious surfaces plus flow reduction from an area equivalent to 40% of the site impervious area, twice as much as required by the stormwater code for a large site with less than 65% impervious coverage. Where existing site conditions and space constraints limit the effectiveness of infiltrating runoff from LID techniques near the source of runoff below this target level, additional flow control, with a preference for infiltration, if feasible, would be provided in a regional stormwater facility located on the west edge of the proposed central park. Under this alternative, all untreated pollution -generating impervious surfaces within the subarea would be eliminated, resulting in a reduction of 1.83 acres of untreated pollution -generating surface from the Johns Creek Basin. The estimated change in effective impervious area would result in a decrease of approximately 1.07 acres (23%) compared with existing conditions. 3.3.5 Mitigation Measures An incorporated feature of the Preferred Alternative is regional detention facilities (e.g. regional rainwater garden) in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative, which includes regional detention facilities as well as the other mitigation measures applicable to the Draft EIS alternatives. 3.4 Plants and Animals Existing fish use of streams draining the Planned Action Study Area was described in Draft EIS Section 3.4 and clarified in Chapter 4 of this EIS. No aquatic habitat has been identified within the Planned Action Study Area, but aquatic habitat does occur in the form of streams in Johns Creek, Honey Creek, and May Creek, which receive stormwater from the Planned Action Study Area. The Planned Action Study Area lies mostly within the Johns Creek Basin. Tabor et al, (2005) report on use of lower Johns Creek by juvenile Chinook salmon that enter the creek from Lake Washington and use the lower 700 to 800 feet of the creek as rearing habitat during the spring and early summer. This portion of Johns Creek is at grade with Lake Washington. Stormwater originating from Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3 1b ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and from portions of the Planned Action Study Area within the Johns Creek Basin would be conveyed to these waters. johns Creels west of I-405 is classified as a major receiving water body that does not require flow duration control. The basis for this determination is in the report Enhanced Transportation Project Delivery through Watershed Characterization, produced by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Urban Corridors Office in collaboration with Ecology, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Muckleshoot Tribe (Gersib et al, 2004). Therefore, the relevant stormwater requirements for flow control within the Johns Creek Basin are to maintain the capacity of the existing storm drainage system by matching peak flows from the existing land coverage and construct flow control BMPs where feasible. These measures are further described below in Section 3.4.1.2. Runoff from a small portion of the northern limits of the study area is conveyed via piped systems to Honey and May creeks. Development within these basins must adhere to the City's drainage standards, which require matching flow durations from a forested predevelopment condition. Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. 3.4.1 Planned Action Study Area 3.4.1.1 Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would have a limited effect on terrestrial vegetation and wildlife habitat in the Planned Action Study Area. Approximately 40% (84 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop. This change would likely result in a proportional reduction in plant cover and a shift toward more intensive social and recreational use of vegetated areas. However, redevelopment in the study area would also use low -impact development practices such as rain gardens and hydraulically functional landscaping measures. These approaches emphasize vegetation enhancement and, as currently practiced in the region, commonly result in a shift to vegetation that requires less watering and chemical (fertilizer/pesticide) application than typical landscaping, with less grass with more trees and shrubs. These changes are likely to result in improved wildlife habitat function within the planted areas. Also, similar to other alternatives considered, redevelopment would be consistent with the goals of the Renton Urban and Community Forestry Redevelopment Plan (Worthy and Associates 2009). The net result is likely to be a measurable decline in total vegetated area, accompanied by a measurable improvement in plant diversity and quality of the remaining habitat. There would also be some restructuring of wildlife habitat continuity. The green connections could enhance habitat connectivity, while areas of density increase would tend to fragment habitat. The net effect would be restricted to minor and local changes in habitat connectivity. Thus, effects on terrestrial wildlife habitat would be less than significant. Besides these net changes, individual redevelopment projects would result in a short-term Ioss of vegetation cover, along with noise and activity levels that would result in little or no use of the construction areas by wildlife during the period of construction. Because these impacts would be temporary and localized and would not occur simultaneously across the Planned Action Study Area, their effects would be very minor. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-17 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative Indirect effects on plants and wildlife would very similar to Draft EIS Alternative 3 (i.e., potential for invasive plant species). Again, largely because of the absence of impacts on special -status species, effects on wildlife would be less than significant. No cumulative impacts on terrestrial vegetation and wildlife have been identified in association with activities that would be expected to occur in the Planned Action Study Area under Alternative 3. 3.4.1.2 Aquatic Habitat and Fish Because there are no aquatic habitats within the Planned Action Study Area, the potential impacts on aquatic habitat and fish under the Preferred Alternative are solely associated with the indirect impacts of stormwater routed to Johns, May and Honey creeks, all of which support salmon, with steelhead also occurring in May and Honey creeks. During construction, redevelopment actions would be required to comply with City regulations requiring temporary erosion and sedimentation controls to prevent water quality impacts from work site stormwater runoff. Thus, there is very little potential for construction activities to affect water quality in Fish -bearing streams, and impacts would be less than significant. Following construction, projects would be required to comply with City regulations requiring stormwater detention and treatment to be consistent with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County 2009), as amended and adopted by the City. Those requirements are summarized below for the Preferred Alternative (though applicable to Alternatives 2 and 3 as well). • Discharge at the Natural Location. The existing discharge points into Johns, May and Honey creeks would not be changed. • Off-site Analysis. The proposed public improvements would not increase the existing impervious area and therefore will not alter the rate, volume, duration, or location of discharges. Each new private and redevelopment project would need to evaluate whether off-site analysis is needed. • Flow Control. New private and redevelopment projects within May or Honey Creek basins would be required to provide flow control to match durations from 50% of the 2 -year storm to the 50 - year storm under forested conditions. Johns Creek is classified as a major receiving water body that does not require duration control. Within the Johns Creek Basin, redevelopment actions must maintain the capacity of the existing storm drainage system by matching peak flows from the existing land coverage and constructing flow control BMPs where feasible. • Conveyance System. Conveyance systems are required to convey and contain the 25 -year design storm. Conveyance systems may overflow during the 100 -year design storm provided that the overflow does not create or aggravate a severe flooding or erosion problem. • Water Quality. All proposed projects that create or replace more than 5,000 square feet of pollution -generating impervious surfaces (or more than 35,000 square feet of pollution - generating pervious surface), including redevelopment projects, must provide water quality treatment facilities. • Source Controls. All commercial, industrial and multifamily projects undergoing drainage review are required to implement source controls that prevent rainfall and runoff from coming into contact with pollutants. Besides the requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, the Preferred Alternative also incorporates a variety of innovative techniques, collectively called green Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 18 ICF 593.1❑ City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative stormwater infrastructure, to minimize pollutant loading and flow volume in stormwater discharged from the Planned Action Study Area. Green stormwater infrastructure will be implemented on individual lots per the flow control BMPs standard, which includes techniques such as full or limited infiltration, dispersion, rain gardens, permeable pavements, rainwater harvesting, vegetated roofs, reduced impervious surfaces, and native growth protection. The standard requires projects to fully disperse or infiltrate roof runoff where feasible and, otherwise, to implement flow control BMPs to target either 1010 or 20% of the site area, depending on the size and density of the site. Public infrastructure projects (green connections, NE Sunset Boulevard, and Sunset Terrace) included in the Planned Action would meet an enhanced minimum performance standard, which is double the minimum for the private development listed above. The effect of these measures is that, although impervious surface in the Planned Action Study Area would increase by 15% under the Preferred Alternative, the net increase in effective impervious area would be only 2.6%, and there would be substantial reductions in pollutant -generating impervious surface (18.6% decline) and untreated pollutant -generating impervious surface (47.5% decline) (Table 3.3-2). The Preferred Alternative would maintain stormwater flow volumes and reduce stormwater pollutant loads relative to existing conditions and, thus, would have a less -than -significant impact on aquatic habitat and fish. No cumulative impacts have been identified in association with activities that would be expected to occur in the Planned Action Study Area under the Preferred Alternative. 3.4.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Potential impacts on terrestrial plant and wildlife habitat in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would be substantially the same as those described above for the Planned Action Study Area. Because redevelopment would include currently vacant lots and development of housing and a senior health facility, it is likely that a net loss of vegetation would occur, even if it were partially compensated by the construction of LID practices such as rain gardens and hydraulically functional landscaping. Nonetheless, in the absence of sensitive wildlife species, these effects would be very minor and would not be expected to substantially alter levels of diversity of plant and animal life now found in the subarea. The only potentially affected aquatic habitat is Johns Creek, which receives stormwater from the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. As noted in Section 3.3.4, above, redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would use green stormwater infrastructure to reduce runoff from impervious surfaces. There would be water quality treatment of all pollution -generating impervious surfaces plus flow reduction from an area equivalent to 40% of the site impervious area, which is twice as much as required by the stormwater code for a large site with less than 65% impervious coverage. Additional flow control would be provided in a regional stormwater facility located on the west edge of the new central park at Sunset Terrace. Redevelopment would result in increased impervious surface area compared with current conditions, but because of treatment and detention BMPs, there would be a reduction in pollutant -generating impervious surface, and all untreated pollutant -generating impervious surface would be eliminated. Effective impervious area on the site would be reduced by 22.60/o (Table 3.3-2). The Preferred Alternative would thus reduce stormwater flow volumes and reduce stormwater pollutant loads relative to existing conditions, producing a beneficial impact on aquatic habitat and fish in the Johns Creek Basin. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-19 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative The stormwater commitments incorporated in the Preferred Alternative would be sufficient to avoid indirect adverse impacts on aquatic habitats and fish. No cumulative impacts have been identified in association with activities that would be expected to occur in the subarea under the Preferred Alternative. 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative. 3.5 Energy Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. For each geographic level, temporary construction impacts are addressed as well as long-term local energy use. In addition, indirect and cumulative impacts of the alternatives' contribution to regional energy use are addressed. 3.5.1 Planned Action Study Area Energy impacts during construction and operation resulting from the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those described in the Draft EIS because the Planned Action Study Area would experience population and employment growth within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3. Development under this alternative would lead to increases in population and employment throughout the study area, resulting in an increase in energy consumption. However, future development increases in the study area would be balanced against corresponding non -transit - oriented development (non-TOD) and lower density development outside the study area under Alternative 1. Table 3.5-1 summarizes the study area's calculated energy usage for the Preferred Alternative and presents overall regional energy reduction relative to Alternative 1. Although the Preferred Alternative level of growth would result in increased energy demand in the study area, the energy impact would not be significant for the same reasons described in the Draft EIS: • More TOD and mixed-use development would reduce regional fuel usage from vehicle trips; • Higher density multifamily development would consume less energy per unit than a low-density housing unit because of its smaller floor area per unit and, therefore, would reduce regional housing energy; and • New buildings, which are more energy efficient that old buildings, would be constructed to meet state and City building and energy code requirements. The potential energy demand and regional benefit is greater than Alternative 2 and similar to Alternative 3. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2411 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-2d ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative Table 3.5-1.Comparison of Annual Energy Usage—Planned Action Study Area Energy Usage Estimates Planned Action Study Area Annual building energy usage Annual vehicle energy usage Total annual energy usage for Planned Action Study Area Annual Energy Usage Increase (million Btu) Preferred Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 70,483 116,260 31,180 39,804 101,663 156,063 184,500 .......... 174,530 91,029 81,315 275,529 255,845 Regional growth outside Planned Action Study Area Annual building energy usage 133,304 78,649 0 11,015 Annual vehicle energy usage 69,755 58,156 0 11,479 Total annual energy usage for 203,509 136,806 0 22,494 regional growth Total annual energy usage 304,722 292,869 275,529 278,339 increase for Planned Action Study Area plus regional growth Net change in regional annual 0 -11,B53 -29,194 -26,383 energy usage compared with Alternative 1 (No Action) Btu = British thermal unit 3.5.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Energy impacts under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those described in the Draft EIS because the subarea would experience population and employment growth within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. Table 3.5-2 summarizes the calculated subarea energy usage for the Preferred Alternative and presents the overall regional energy reduction. relative to Alternative 1. Although the growth anticipated under the Preferred Alternative would result in increased energy demand in the subarea, the energy impact would not be significant for the same reasons described for the Planned Action Study Area, above. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-21 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593,10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative Table 3.5-2.Comparison of Annual Energy Usage --Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 3.5.3 Mitigation Measures There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative. 3.6 Noise Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. For each geographic level, temporary construction noise impacts are addressed as well as long-term operational noise impacts of land use activities. In addition, the increase in noise from traffic is addressed as a cumulative impact, including each alternative's contribution of vehicular trips to total trips on NE Sunset Boulevard. 3.6.1 Planned Action Study Area The Preferred Alternative is expected to have population and employment growth within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3. Because the amount of redevelopment falls within the bookends of the Draft EIS alternatives, noise impacts from construction activities, commercial activities, and vehicles traveling on NE Sunset Boulevard and local streets would be similar to those described in the Draft EIS. No significant unavoidable adverse construction or operational noise impacts are anticipated in Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-22 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1CF 593.10 Annual Energy Usage Increase (million Btu) Preferred Energy Usage Estimates Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Annual building energy usage 7,953 15,048 21,821 12,644 Annual vehicle energy usage 3,081 11,408 21,833 8,695 Total annual energy usage for 11,034 26,457 43,654 21,338 subarea Regional Growth Outside Subarea Annual building energy usage 15,409 7,525 0 10,196 Annual vehicle energy usage 20,835 11,583 0 14,599 Total annual energy usage for 36,245 19,108 0 24,795 regional growth Total annual energy usage 47,278 45,564 43,654 46,133 increase for subarea plus regional growth Net change in regional annual 0 -1,714 -3,624 -1,145 energy usage compared with Alternative 1 (No Action) Btu = British thermal unit 3.5.3 Mitigation Measures There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative. 3.6 Noise Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. For each geographic level, temporary construction noise impacts are addressed as well as long-term operational noise impacts of land use activities. In addition, the increase in noise from traffic is addressed as a cumulative impact, including each alternative's contribution of vehicular trips to total trips on NE Sunset Boulevard. 3.6.1 Planned Action Study Area The Preferred Alternative is expected to have population and employment growth within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3. Because the amount of redevelopment falls within the bookends of the Draft EIS alternatives, noise impacts from construction activities, commercial activities, and vehicles traveling on NE Sunset Boulevard and local streets would be similar to those described in the Draft EIS. No significant unavoidable adverse construction or operational noise impacts are anticipated in Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-22 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative the Planned Action Study Area with the implementation of mitigation measures noted in the Draft EIS. As shown in Table 3.6-1, the Preferred Alternative would generate traffic volumes on NE Sunset Boulevard similar to those of Alternative 3. The modeled peak -hour traffic noise increase (2030 noise levels compared with existing noise levels), as shown in Table 3.6-2, is less than WSDOT's "substantial increase" impact threshold of 10 dBA. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would not affect typical residences along NE Sunset Boulevard. Table 3.6-1. NE Sunset Boulevard Traffic Volumes in Planned Action Study Area 3.6.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Under the Preferred Alternative, the subarea is expected to experience population and employment growth within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. Therefore, noise impacts from construction activities, commercial activities, and vehicles traveling on NE Sunset Boulevard would be similar to those described in the Draft EIS. No significant unavoidable adverse noise impacts from construction and commercial activities are anticipated in the subarea with the implementation of mitigation measures noted in the Draft EIS. As shown in Table 3.6-1, the Preferred Alternative would generate daily traffic volumes on NE Sunset Boulevard similar to those of Alternative 3. However, on the east side of Harrington Avenue NE, the setback of proposed buildings would be farther from the NE Sunset Boulevard centerline than the Draft EIS alternatives at 65 feet. On the west side of Harrington Avenue NE, the proposed building setback would be 70 feet from the center of NE Sunset Boulevard, and on east side of Harrington Avenue NE, the proposed building setback would be 65 feet from the center of NE Sunset Boulevard. Regardless, as shown in Table 3.6-3, the first row of residential dwellings abutting NE Sunset Boulevard (see Figure 2-11) would be exposed to "normally unacceptable" noise levels based on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) criterion of 65 dBA La,,; Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-23 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 Peak -Hour Traffic Volume Average Daily Traffic Volume Alternative (vehicles/hour) (vehicles/day) Existing (2009) 2,020 2.0,200 Alternative 1 (2030) 2,420 24,200 Alternative 2 (2030) 2,530 25,300 Alternative 3 (2030) 2,660 26,600 Preferred Alternative (2030) 2,640 26,400 Table 3.6-2. Modeled Peak -Hour Noise Levels of NE Sunset Boulevard in the Planned Action Study Area Increased Noise Level from Outdoor Noise Level Existing Alternative L,g (dBA) Leq (dBA) Existing (2009) 67.4 — Alternative 1 (2030) 69.5 2.1 Alternative 2 (2030) 69.6 2.2 Alternative 3 (2030) 69.9 2.5 Preferred Alternative (2030) 69.9 2.5 Leq = equivalent sound level; dBA = A -weighted decibel 3.6.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Under the Preferred Alternative, the subarea is expected to experience population and employment growth within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. Therefore, noise impacts from construction activities, commercial activities, and vehicles traveling on NE Sunset Boulevard would be similar to those described in the Draft EIS. No significant unavoidable adverse noise impacts from construction and commercial activities are anticipated in the subarea with the implementation of mitigation measures noted in the Draft EIS. As shown in Table 3.6-1, the Preferred Alternative would generate daily traffic volumes on NE Sunset Boulevard similar to those of Alternative 3. However, on the east side of Harrington Avenue NE, the setback of proposed buildings would be farther from the NE Sunset Boulevard centerline than the Draft EIS alternatives at 65 feet. On the west side of Harrington Avenue NE, the proposed building setback would be 70 feet from the center of NE Sunset Boulevard, and on east side of Harrington Avenue NE, the proposed building setback would be 65 feet from the center of NE Sunset Boulevard. Regardless, as shown in Table 3.6-3, the first row of residential dwellings abutting NE Sunset Boulevard (see Figure 2-11) would be exposed to "normally unacceptable" noise levels based on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) criterion of 65 dBA La,,; Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-23 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative however, the City meets exceptions to the 65 dBA Ldn criterion in 24 CFR part 51, as identified in Final EIS Appendix F. The noise levels at these first -row residential dwellings currently exceed the HUD noise criterion and would continue to exceed it under the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, mitigation measures determined to be feasible will be required to reduce traffic noise from NE Sunset Boulevard and meet the HUD interior noise criterion of 45 dBA Ld„ for residential uses. With an exterior noise level over 68 dBA, the proposed buildings would be required to achieve a minimum 24 dBA reduction. According to the HUD noise guidebook, noise attenuation from various building materials are calculated using a sound transmission class (STC) rating. Although the standard construction approaches can normally achieve an STC rating of more than 24 dBA, as demonstrated in Final EIS Appendix F, RHA should require an STC rating of 30 dBA for these first -row residential dwellings because the HUD noise guidebook shows that the sound reduction achieved by different techniques may be a little optimistic.' A performance standard of 30 dBA is added as a mitigation measure for all action alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative (see Final EIS Chapter 1, Table 1-2, for this addition). It should be noted that, in determining the construction techniques to achieve the interior noise level, a project can proceed without the requirement of sealing the windows provided criteria are met, as identified in Final EIS Appendix F. Table 3.6-3. Modeled Day -Night Noise Levels of NE Sunset Boulevard in Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Alternative 1 Outdoor Noise 68.9 Outdoor Noise 68.9 Level Level Average Setback West of Alternative 2 East of West of Harrington Average Setback Harrington Harrington (in Avenue NE East of Harington Avenue NE Alternative feet) Ldn (dBA) (in feet) Ldd (dBA) Existing (2009) 60 68.1 60 68.1 Alternative 1 60 68.9 60 68.9 (2030) Alternative 2 70 68.0 50 70.2 (2030) Alternative 3 70 68.3 50 70.4 (2030) Preferred 70 68.2 65 68.7 Alternative (20301 Ld. = day -night noise level; dBA = A -weighted decibel 3.6.3 Mitigation Measures A performance standard of 30 dBA is added as a mitigation measure for all action alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative (see Final EIS Chapter 1, Table 1-2, for this addition). Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative, including those applicable to the Draft EIS. ' 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." Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-24 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton 3.7 Environmental Health Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset "Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. As described for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 (see Section 2.7 of Chapter 2) and in the Draft IDIS, the risk level increases in the same order as the alternatives are discussed. The likelihood of encountering substances at sites with past releases increases with the level of development. For the Preferred Alternative, the level of development is similar to but slightly less than that of Alternative 3. Therefore, the overall impacts of the Preferred Alternative on environmental health are slightly less than those of Alternative 3. While all of the impacts listed below could occur during construction and operation of the project, elements included under the Preferred Alternative would need to be addressed at a project -specific level through permitting and demonstrate compliance with federal, state, and local laws that address hazardous materials. The relative impacts listed below are based on general anticipated areas of construction, along with general land use development type and proximity to sites identified in the regulatory agency database search. The hazardous material sites identified in the regulatory agency database search are not expected to affect the health and safety of occupants or conflict with the intended utilization of future developments. 3.7.1 Planned Action Study Area 3.7.1.1 Construction Impacts The primary potential construction impact under the Preferred Alternative is encountering or releasing hazardous substances into the environment during construction. Contamination from hazardous building materials, underground storage tanks (USTs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) would also increase because of increased demolition activities. Accidental releases of hazardous substances as a result of construction activities could also increase. 3.7.1.2 Operation Impacts If development occurs as described in the Preferred Alternative on contaminated sites, where appropriate cleanup measures were not completed or residual contaminations were present, then there is a potential risk to public health for people using the site. In addition, acquiring an easement or title to properties with potential environmental contamination could create significant long-term environmental liability or management concerns. Longer term environmental liabilities might include financial responsibility for cleaning on-site contamination or for remediation activities necessitated by off-site migration of hazardous substances. The potential for hazardous material releases could occur because of the commercial development and roadway/transit improvements. Commercial development, such as addition of new fuel stations or dry cleaners, could increase the potential for release of hazardous substances into the environment as a result of accidental spills during transport and operation of these facilities. In addition, hazardous substances, such as oil and other lubricants, are used or transported during routine operation and maintenance of transit facilities or roadways. With development, increased traffic is expected. If an accident occurs, then these substances could be released to the environment Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-25 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative in the form of spills. All other things being equal, the risk of a spill occurring is proportional to VMT. Thus, an increase in traffic as a result of roadway and/or transit improvements would increase the risk of incidental spills of hazardous materials. 3.7.1.3 Indirect Impacts The removal of contaminated groundwater, hazardous building materials, or USTS would result in an overall cleaner environment and reduced risk to human health and the environment. By removing contaminated groundwater and USTs from hazardous materials sites, the potential for the contaminants to migrate to an otherwise uncontaminated area is reduced, and the potential for the hazardous materials to harm human health and the environment is also reduced. This beneficial effect would be observed in the immediate vicinity of the area where contaminated media are present and removed as a result of redevelopment. 3.7.1.4 Cumulative Impacts As development occurs within the Planned. Action Study Area and the surrounding region, population and activity levels will rise, and the number of people exposed to hazards related to the transport of hazardous materials will increase. However, the incremental impact of the project is so small that it would make only a negligible contribution to the cumulative impact within the region. Enforcement of federal, state, county, and local hazardous material regulations will reduce public health hazards to a less -than -significant level. 3.7.1.5 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate the impacts described above, as discussed in Section 4.7.2.1 of the Draft EIS, apply to Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 and the Preferred Alternative. A clarification to a mitigation measure referencing a particular Ecology database is made in Final EIS Chapter 1, Table 1-2, and Final EIS Chapter 4, Clarifications and Corrections. 3.7.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Existing subsurface contaminations have not been identified on the vacant properties within the subarea and, therefore, are not expected to be encountered during construction. If there are lead-based paints or asbestos -containing materials (ACMs) at any existing buildings that would be demolished, appropriate permits and precautions would be required. Accidental release of hazardous substances during construction could still occur as in all construction projects. 3.7.2.1 Construction Impacts None of the sites with identified use or documented releases of hazardous substances are present within this subarea. Therefore, the potential to encounter uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances in the environment during construction is relatively low, Contamination from hazardous building materials, USTs, and PCBs during demolition activities, as well as accidental spills during construction, would be the same as described for the Planned Action Study Area. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-26 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 59310 City of Renton 3.7.2.2 Operational Impacts Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative No operation impacts have been identified because none of the sites with identified use or documented releases of hazardous substances are present within this subarea. Therefore, the potential for acquiring long-term environmental liability or management concerns are low. 3.7.2.3 Indirect Impacts The removal of hazardous building materials or USTs would result in an overall cleaner environment and reduced risk to human health and the environment. 3.7.2.4 Cumulative Impacts The hazardous materials impact of the potential development in the subarea is so small that it would make only a negligible contribution to the cumulative impact within the region. 3.7.2.5 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate the impacts described above, as discussed in Section 4.7.2.2 of the Draft EIS, apply to Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 and the Preferred Alternative. A clarification to a mitigation measure referencing a particular Ecology database is made in Final EIS Chapter 1, Table 1-2, and Final EIS Chapter 4, CIarifications and Corrections. 3.8 Land Use 3.8.1 Planned Action Study Area The Preferred Alternative is similar to Alternative 3 and falls within the bookends of the Draft ETS alternatives. The Preferred Alternative would provide construction -related impacts within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3 because the amount of redevelopment falls within this range. The implementation of appropriate construction mitigation measures, similar to those described in the Draft EIS, would ensure that construction would not cause significant adverse impacts. Development under the Preferred Alternative would implement the City's Comprehensive Plan designations within the Planned Action Study Area to a similar extent as Alternative 3 by providing more of a mixed-use, pedestrian -oriented community center than the other alternatives considered. The Preferred Alternative would provide more than 2,300 dwelling units and 1.2 million square feet of commercial space compared with existing conditions, This level of growth is closest to Alternative 3; it falls within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, redevelopment would provide more commercial than residential development, and the most intense development would occur along and near the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor in the Sunset Mixed Use and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment subareas. There would be slightly more intense residential development in the Central Subarea under the Preferred Alternative compared with other alternatives as a result of the consolidation of Sunset Court Park into a central park in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and corresponding redevelopment of the existing Sunset Court Park site. As a result, there would be less intense development in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea where a larger 2.65 -acre park would be located, reducing anticipated redevelopment in that subarea. Overall intensity of development in the Planned Action Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3 27 ICF 543.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative Study Area and the number of taller buildings, up to 60 feet in height, would fall in the range of Alternatives 2 and 3. Streetscape upgrades to NE Sunset Boulevard and nearby streets would most closely resemble those considered in Alternative 3. However, on NE Sunset Boulevard between Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 10th Street, right-of-way acquisition would be needed along the Sunset Terrace property (up to 14 feet instead of 13 feet as under Alternative 3), whereas the south side of the NE Sunset Boulevard would retain its existing pedestrian streetscape, resulting in less right-of-way impacts on this side of NE Sunset Boulevard compared with Alternative 3. East of NE 10th Street, minimal right-of-way acquisition would be needed because the current right-of-way width along NE Sunset Boulevard would accommodate the proposed street improvements, though some parking areas would intrude into the existing right-of-way. All alternatives implement the City's Comprehensive Plan to varying degrees. However, a review of the Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, and policies found in Draft EIS Appendix E indicates that the Preferred Alternative provides a level of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan similar to that of Alternative 3, which is the most consistent of all the alternatives with respect to implementing the vision of the Center Village designation and other associated designations within the Planned Action Study Area. It also provides for a balanced multimodal transportation system. As with other alternatives studied, no indirect or cumulative land use impacts are anticipated outside the Planned Action Study Area because of the City's planned density pattern and regular Comprehensive Plan review and amendment updates, which control the monitoring, evaluation, and amendment process. 3.8.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Temporary impacts on adjacent land uses in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would be related to redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex, development of affordable housing on vacant properties, and completion of civic investments, including a 2.65 -acre public park, which would require vacation of Harrington Avenue NE between NE 10th Street and NE Sunset Lane. Construction -related impacts would be similar to those described under Alternatives 2 and 3 in which the entire subarea would be redeveloped. Assuming the phasing of redevelopment described in Chapter 2 and the implementation of mitigation measures similar to those described under the No Action Alternative for the Planned Action Study Area (see Final EIS Chapter 1), construction would not cause significant adverse impacts. Redevelopment within the subarea under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to but less extensive than Alternative 2, largely because of the inclusion of a larger public open space within the subarea resulting from transfer of Sunset Court Park open space from the Central Subarea to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. The Preferred Alternative would provide about 266 more dwelling units than existing conditions in a mixed-use development that integrates commercial and civic spaces (between 25,600 and 38,100 square feet of commercial and civic space), falling within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. However, under the Preferred AIternative, the entire subarea would be transformed by redevelopment, more in keeping with the City's vision of mixed-use development and similar to Alternatives 2 and 3. Further, this redevelopment of the subarea would serve as an incentive for other redevelopment opportunities near the Planned Action Study Area, including redevelopment of the existing Sunset Court Park site located north of the subarea. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-28 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative Infrastructure improvements planned for the subarea would include streetscape improvements within and adjacent to the subarea to create a more pedestrian- and transit -friendly environment and creation of the 2.65 -acre park described above. The vacation of a portion of Harrington Avenue NE would have a localized impact on vehicular traffic similar to that described under Alternative 3 in the Draft EIS. A loop road would be created with an extension of Sunset Lane NE and the realignment of intersections at Harrington Avenue NE, NE 10th Street, and Glenwood Avenue NE. Streetscape improvements in the subarea under the Preferred Alternative would be most similar to those studied for Alternative 3. As described under the Planned Action Study Area, above, the property acquisition needed for streetscape improvements could be up to 1 foot greater than the acquisition anticipated in Alternative 3 on the western portion of the subarea abutting NE Sunset Boulevard. However, this additional increment of property acquisition is not anticipated to result in a significant impact; Sunset Terrace concept plans in Figure 2-11 of this Final EIS account for the conceptual improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard. In addition, realignment of the NE 10th Street connection to Glenwood Avenue NE would affect two existing buildings located north of the existing Glenwood Avenue NE alignment and one building southeast of the intersection of Glenwood Avenue NE and Sunset Lane within the subarea. However, the Preferred Alternative, similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, anticipates redevelopment of the entire subarea, and these dwelling units would be replaced in a phased manner, as described in Chapter 2. As with other alternatives, refinements to the Sunset Terrace development design and the streetscape design would be coordinated to minimize impacts of the streetscape design on future redevelopment of Sunset Terrace. Impacts of streetscape improvements within the subarea would be similar to those described under Alternative 3. The Preferred Alternative would provide a level of Comprehensive Plan goal and policy consistency that would be similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, both of which would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing complex with a mixed -income development, which is consistent with City policies that discourage the creation of socioeconomic enclaves and encourage the dispersion of low-income housing. These alternatives would also do more to develop the Center Village, as envisioned in the City's Comprehensive Plan, than the No Action Alternative. The subarea is similar to the Planned Action Study Area with respect to other City Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. (Goals, objectives, and policies are found in Draft EIS Appendix E.) 3.8.3 Mitigation Measures There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative. 3.9 Socioeconomics Impacts on socioeconomics, both beneficial and adverse, are discussed with respect to the programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and the specific project impacts of developing proposed conceptual plans within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Because the Preferred Alternative is similar to Alternative 3 in terms of location and the amount of growth, the Preferred Alternative would result in similar impacts. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-29 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.1D City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative 3,9.1 Planned Action Study Area 3.9.1.1 Construction Impacts Construction activities associated with the Preferred Alternative are not anticipated to result in any changes in the population characteristics of the Planned Action Study Area. Construction in the study area would result in beneficial impacts related to the creation of jobs and increased spending. Some products used during construction of a project would be purchased locally, and some local firms and workers would likely be involved in construction. The number of jobs created would depend on type and size of buildings being constructed. Construction employment would be temporary, and the workers could come from anywhere in the region. Construction activities could result in increases in noise, dust, and visual impacts. Additionally activities could temporarily increase congestion and reduce parking, local access for businesses and residents, and access near the construction activities, which could negatively affect businesses, but businesses located close to construction activities could experience an increase in revenue from spending by construction workers. Depending on the reconstruction timeframe of NE Sunset Boulevard, residents in the adjacent area could experience noise, dust, visual, and congestion impacts. Access points across NE Sunset Boulevard would be maintained during construction, avoiding negative access impacts. However, roadway improvements along NE Sunset Boulevard could result in access issues that would require mitigation measures prior to construction to ensure that business access is maintained during construction, If the construction of improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard results in any changes to access to current businesses that do not allow the businesses to remain in their current location, or if any required acquisition would negatively affect the business, compensation would be provided under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and state Iaw. The roadway improvements would result in additional temporary construction jobs beyond those related to redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area. 3.9.1.2 Operation Impacts With the Preferred Alternative, the Planned Action Study Area would be revitalized as a result of the updated infrastructure and civic improvements, which would result in benefits to those in the Planned Action Study Area and the surrounding area. The Preferred Alternative would improve commercial uses by providing new space and new potential customers/employees with the denser area and the addition of new dwelling units. The Preferred Alternative would add 2,339 dwelling units (2,073 units outside the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea), which is anticipated to increase the population by approximately 5,403 persons (4,788 outside the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) based on an average household size of 2.31. By 2030, with the Preferred Alternative, the population of the Planned Action Study Area would be 8,381 and would include 3,628 dwelling units. Refer to Chapter 2 for additional information. Increases in employment would result from new public and private investment in the Planned Action Study Area and the growth and land use capacity anticipated under the Preferred Alternative. By 2030, the Planned Action Study Area is anticipated to have 4,460 to 4,498 jobs, to which the Preferred Alternative would contribute between 3,154 and 3,192 jobs (3,075 jobs outside the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea), These jobs are based on an estimated increase in new commercial and civic/educational space of approximately 1,250,000 square feet (see Chapter 2 for additional information). Although the specific types of jobs that would be created are currently Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-30 April 2011 Final [NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 59110 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative unknown, new retail and service businesses (e.g., restaurants, coffee shops, dentists, dry cleaners) are anticipated. It is likely that new jobs would be similar to those already existing (i.e., retail, services, and education). The new jobs would be available to all residents in the Planned Action Study Area and the surrounding region. The addition of new jobs could decrease the unemployment rate. Displacements would occur during redevelopment as properties are acquired and redeveloped. If residents or businesses are renting or leasing the space, they would be required to relocate. The majority of residents in the Planned Action Study Area are non -minority, in smaller households, and earning less than residents in the surrounding region. These are the populations that are most likely to be affected. If rental properties are acquired and redeveloped, those renting would be displaced. In general, no mitigation is required as long as the tenants are provided adequate notice. Many of the renters, both residential and business, likely entered into rent or lease agreements for a specified length of time, and the property owner would not have to renew the lease once the agreed upon timeframe has expired. Relocation assistance would be required where persons are displaced as a result of a federal action or an undertaking involving federal funds. Many of the population characteristics in the Planned Action Study Area would likely continue to mirror Renton as a whole, but median household income would likely increase with the greater number of affordable and market -rate units, attracting residents of all ages and incomes. The addition of new market -rate units could result in the Planned Action Study Area becoming less affordable to current residents. It is likely that many of the new units would be a combination of rented and owned units. The new dwelling units would increase the percentage of newer housing and the housing densities in the Planned Action Study Area, including apartments, condominiums, and townhome units, but decrease the percentage of lower density forms of housing (e.g., duplexes). As described in Chapter 2, the Preferred Alternative includes a family village that would include housing, education, recreation, and supportive services. These facilities would be designed to promote a healthy and walkable neighborhood. The family village would likely result in improved cohesion of the surrounding area by providing areas for the residents to gather and interact. The addition of the family village would likely attract families, resulting in a change in demographics in the Planned Action Study Area; consequently, this could increase the average household size. A greater number of senior citizens could reside in this area with the construction of the senior housing; daytime use for non-resident seniors would also increase with the addition of the day health center. The elder day health center would provide a beneficial service beyond the subarea to the Planned Action Study Area and the broader Renton community. The Preferred Alternative would improve NE Sunset Boulevard and include wider sidewalks, bicycle lanes in both directions, and transit facility improvements. Although the Preferred Alternative would widen the roadway, the access points would be maintained, and no new barriers to access would be created. These improvements would revitalize the Planned Action Study Area and improve overall cobesion. The addition of new community facilities, including parks/open space and the new library, would also benefit the Planned Action Study Area and provide new opportunities for residents to gather and interact. Improvements in the streetscape along NE Sunset Boulevard and other infrastructure improvements would make the study area more desirable to investment, which could lead to additional opportunities for employment as more businesses are attracted to the study area. For further discussions of community institutions and potential impacts during operation, refer to the parks and recreation analysis (Draft EIS Section 4.15) and public services analysis (Draft EIS Section 4.16). Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 31 ICF 593.10 City of Renton 3.9.1.3 Indirect Impacts Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative Construction spending would result in positive indirect effects on employment and income in the Planned Action Study Area and in the broader regional economy. Businesses that support the construction effort with building materials (e.g., cement, lumber, flooring) and equipment would likely see increased revenue. The exact types of businesses that would move to the Planned Action Study Area or the new businesses that would be started are not known at this time. It is likely that many of the unemployed residents in the Planned Action Study Area would apply for the new jobs. As the Planned Action Study Area redevelops, existing businesses could see an increase in business as more people move to the study area and new jobs are created. Redevelopment is anticipated to make the Planned Action Study Area a more attractive place to live and work and, consequently, could result in increases in rents for both residents and businesses. Some residents and businesses could be unable to afford the rent increases and need to relocate elsewhere. It is assumed that new development on private properties would be at the market rate; thus, the owners would be able to set the rate, and any increase would be dependent on the local economy and vacancy rate in the surrounding area. In addition, if any occupied businesses or residential units are acquired for redevelopment, tenants would receive proper notice and would likely remain until their current lease expires. For non-federal actions or undertakings, these businesses or residents would not be compensated and would be required to cover their own expenses for relocating, either within the Planned Action Study Area or elsewhere. (See Housing mitigation measures in Final EIS Chapter 1, Table 1-2.) However, additional public and private investment would increase spending and the degree of economic benefits. More diverse housing stock would lead to positive changes in the community and interaction of the residents. New development would improve cohesion in the Planned Action Study Area. This would be a result of the planned housing and employment growth as well as the planned amenities, which would act as gathering places. These improvements in cohesion would act as additional draws for the Planned Action Study Area, attracting new residents and visitors, thereby improving economics by generating additional sales and sales tax revenues. Because of the added market -rate units, some of the new households may have higher incomes and increase spending in the Planned Action Study Area. The improvements would likely contribute to an increase in property values in the study area. In addition, the infrastructure improvements and new development would attract more investment and possibly extend beyond the boundaries of the Planned Action Study Area. The increased attractiveness of the study area would likely result in increases in real estate prices and the number of market -rate dwelling units, making the study area unaffordable for some and resulting in unwanted relocations. 3.9.1.4 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative construction impacts would depend on when construction activities occur over the life of the 20 -year planning period. If projects overlap or development continues at an even pace, the economic benefits would occur over a longer duration. If construction occurs quickly and a number of projects overlap, issues related to skilled labor shortages could result. During operation, cumulative effects would be positive with the addition of new development, which would continue to enhance the Planned Action Study Area and improve its vitality. Civic investment Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-32 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement IGF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative would result in ongoing improvements in community cohesion and spur growth in the Planned Action Study Area as it becomes a more desirable place to live and work. 3.9.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 3.9.2.1 Construction Impacts Demolition of the Sunset Terrace complex to allow for redevelopment would require relocation of the tenants. Some local businesses could lose sales during construction if the tenants are relocated outside of the immediate area. However, because the total number of relocations would represent a small portion of the overall population, any impact would likely be small in scale. As described under the Planned Action Study Area, it is likely that construction workers would frequent businesses, reducing potential negative impacts on local businesses. The relocation of the tenants would have short-term impacts on the cohesion of the subarea and the social interactions of the tenants, depending on where residents are located. Tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would be relocated prior to demolition of the complex. With federal funds being used to redevelop Sunset Terrace, the tenants would be offered relocation assistance in compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended. The purpose of this act is to ensure that those persons who are affected by property acquisitions under a project funded by the federal government are treated fairly, consistently, and equitably and that they do not suffer disproportionate injuries. Tenants will be provided certain relocation services and payments, which can include moving cost reimbursements, assistance finding comparable housing, and other assistance needed to minimize impacts associated with moving. Section 8 vouchers will be used for the relocation of tenants. Once the reconstruction is complete, relocated tenants would be offered spaces in the new development. Depending on the reconstruction timeframe of NE Sunset Boulevard, tenants could experience noise, dust, visual, and congestion impacts. Access points across NE Sunset Boulevard would be maintained during construction, avoiding negative access impacts for the tenants. 3.9.2.2 Operation Impacts for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would be similar to those described above for the Planned Action Study Area. The Preferred Alternative would redevelop approximately 376 dwellings. It is anticipated that there would be a net increase of 266 new dwelling units in the area, increasing population by 614 persons and creating between 79 and 117 new jobs. Population characteristics of the subarea would change to a greater degree than in the Planned Action Study Area because of the addition of affordable and market -rate units. It is likely that the median household income would increase with the addition of market -rate housing and lower the percentage of individuals below the poverty level. The addition of townhomes, which could create ownership opportunities, could slightly increase the percentage of owners; however, the percentage of renters is likely to continue to dominate. Housing characteristics in the subarea would be similar to those in the Planned Action Study Area, and these subarea improvements would improve cohesion and catalyze private reinvestment in the Planned Action Study Area. The new dwellings would substantially increase the percentage of newer housing stock in the subarea, making it more attractive for renters and owners. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3 33 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative The new community facilities would improve cohesion for the residents because tenants may feel more a part of the redeveloped community. They would also provide new locations for residents to gather and interact. 3.9.3 Mitigation Measures There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative. 3.10 Housing Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. 3.10.1 Planned Action Study Area 3.10.1.1 Construction Impacts Construction of commercial, residential, and civic uses in the Planned Action Study Area would create temporary noise, dust, and construction traffic, which would affect current residents. The potential for construction impacts in the Planned Action Study Area under the Preferred Alternative is similar to but slightly less than impacts under Alternative 3 given the slightly lower growth projections. 3.10.1.2 Operation Impacts Similar to Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative assumes that 40% of the study area acreage would infill or redevelop. This would result in the greatest number of dwellings being replaced (299 total). These would be located in the North, Central and South subareas (combined total of 163), followed by the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea (110), and lastly the Sunset Mixed Use subarea (about 26). The higher number of dwellings, compared with AIternative 2, is due largely to the inclusion of the family village concept in the North Subarea. Most properties in the study area are relatively more low cost than in other parts of Renton; new dwellings could be built at market rates, affordable, and public, such as the family village in the North Subarea as well as in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea (addressed in more detail below). It is expected that most of the 299 dwellings would be replaced on site with the redevelopment of the properties. There is a similar exception, noted for all Draft EIS alternatives, for about five single-family dwellings along NE Sunset Boulevard that would likely be converted to commercial uses. Also, similar to Alternatives 1 and 2, there are some vacant properties; redevelopment at higher densities could serve as replacement units. The Preferred Alternative would add up to approximately 2,339 new dwellings, about 181% more than the current number of dwellings, 57% more than Alternative 1, 41% more than Alternative 2, and 7% less than Alternative 3 (Table3.10-1). Most new units would be multifamily. Some units, as described under Construction Impacts, would be public or affordable. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3 34 icF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative Table 3.10-1. Current and Proposed Dwellings'—Preferred Alternative Dwelling Type Single-family 2030 Preferred 2030 Preferred Existing Land use Alternative: Total AIternative: Net Multifamily Planne unit in small z f Planned : d 39 10 Mnned' '. 6 Atdbn:: Potential Action Potential Action' ;' Potential St�.t Yy Sunset Terrace tdy' Sunset Terrace Study .i Sunset Terrace AM Redevelopmen Arda' .' Redevelopmen AMa Redevelopmen t (total) txtal] . t (total) {fief} t (net) Single-family home i]�7k: 0 121'.F 0 4; 0 Multifamily unit in small z f building (1-4) 39 10 71$, 1621 6 Multifamily unit in large building (�!: 5) 7$3 loo x,7139,' 360 x,006'= 260 Total 1,289'.' 110 3,is2.E 376 2,33,9: 266 1 Because of formulas and rounding, totals may slightly differ from estimates in Chapter 2. 3.10.1.3 Indirect Impacts Under the Preferred Alternative, the potential for residents to help support local businesses as well as create a demand for services is similar to but slightly less than that of Alternative 3 (the greatest of all the studied alternatives [3,796 total dwellings and 2,507 net dwellings]). Depending on the success of public and private reinvestment, which is anticipated to be greatest under both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3, another indirect impact could be additional pressure on existing housing to redevelop, beyond what is indicated in land capacity analysis and projections. However, as noted for the Draft EIS alternatives, the City monitors growth regularly through its Comprehensive Plan, and over the 20 -year period of the Planned Action, the City would review trends at least two to three times. 3.10.1.4 Cumulative Impacts Growth in the study area would be greater than previously planned in the No Action Alternative but less than that of Alternative 3; this increase of 57% would contribute to meeting the City's higher growth targets for 2031, which are to be addressed in the City's next Comprehensive Plan Update. 3.10.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 3.10.2.1 Construction Impacts The redevelopment of the subarea would likely occur in phases, as described in Section 2.7.2.2. Construction of residential, commercial, and civic uses would create temporary noise, dust, and construction traffic, which would affect current residents, particularly those residents who remain during the construction of the earlier phase(s). Mitigation would be required to minimize effects, as noted for Draft EIS Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 (e.g., traffic control plans, construction site erosion control, and enforcement of City noise regulations). Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-35 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton 3.10.2.2 Operation Impacts Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative In this subarea, 110 public housing and duplex dwellings would be eliminated. All public housing units would be replaced, with approximately 88 units replaced on site and 12 replaced off site. The number of units added would be 266 higher the number of existing dwellings (a total of 376 units). Of these, approximately 78% would be public and affordable, and 22% would be market -rate dwelling units. 3.10.2.3 Indirect Impacts The potential for residents to help support local businesses as well as create a demand for services is as noted for the Planned Action Study Area as a whole. 3.10.2,4 Cumulative Impacts With respect to meeting City growth targets, the level of assistance attributable to the new dwellings would be similar to that of the study area as a whole. 3.10.3 Mitigation Measures There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative. 3.11 Environmental Justice This section analyzes the impacts (beneficial and adverse) of the Preferred Alternative on environmental justice populations in the Planned Action Study Area in general and the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea specifically to determine if they would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on environmental justice populations. Impacts are discussed at two levels under each alternative. 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts of developing proposed conceptual plans within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. In the Planned Action Study Area, growth is expected to be consistent with City plans, but the exact types of development are not known. Thus, the impact analysis is based generally on the types of impacts that would be expected with construction and operation. However, for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, conceptual plans have been prepared (see Figure 2-11 for the Preferred Alternative) and are evaluated. 3.11.1 Planned Action Study Area 3.11.1.1 Construction Impacts Mixed-use development at strategic nodes, in addition to residential uses and local -serving commercial development throughout the Planned Action Study Area, would result in dust, noise, and visual impacts on nearby residents from construction activities. Residents in proximity to construction on NE Sunset Boulevard would also be affected by dust, noise, visual, and traffic Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-36 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative impacts. Because the Planned Action Study Area population is predominately non -minority and non - low income, these impacts would not be considered disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations. The demolition of the Sunset Terrace complex and construction of the Preferred Alternative's conceptual plans would require relocation of the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex, likely through Section 8 vouchers. The Preferred Alternative would result in a relatively high level of growth and major public investment in infrastructure and public services throughout the Planned Action Study Area, similar to the level of growth and investment under Alternative 3. It would result in construction impacts that would be greater than those of Draft EIS Alternatives I and 2 but similar to those of Alternative 3. 3.11.1.2 Operation Impacts Residential, commercial, and recreational development as well as civic and infrastructure improvements under the Preferred Alternative would improve the overall neighborhood, making it a more cohesive and desirable place to live. Residents would have new areas to interact, and redevelopment would improve the overall visual quality of the Planned Action Study Area with the addition of new development. This would benefit all populations within the Planned Action Study Area, including minority and low-income populations. The improvements on NE Sunset Boulevard would improve access across the roadway and include wider sidewalks and bicycle lanes, resulting in improvements for those who walk or ride bicycles. The addition of new park facilities and the improvements on NE Sunset Boulevard could provide health benefits. This benefit would apply to all populations within the Planned Action Study Area. Similar to Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative would also include the creation of a family village in the North Subarea; this would provide opportunities for housing, education, recreation, and supportive services. The family village would also improve cohesion for residents by providing a new gathering place. The family village would be beneficial for all populations in the Planned Action Study Area, but these benefits could accrue to a greater degree for minority and low-income populations because of the proximity, especially for those without access to a vehicle. In addition, depending on the supportive services provided, these benefits would accrue to the minority and low-income populations in the Planned Action Study Area, especially if the services are focused on providing support to environmental justice populations. The addition of the new civic facilities would be a benefit for the entire community and act as a gathering place that would enhance community cohesion. In addition, the subarea residents would realize the beneficial effects associated with the improvements in the Planned Action Study Area. The roadway improvements would also be beneficial to all populations. 3.11.1.3 Indirect Impacts The new dwellings that would be constructed outside of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea may not include affordable housing for low-income populations. Temporary increases in employment related to construction would occur within the Planned Action Study Area, but these jobs may or may not directly benefit residences of the Planned Action Study Area because construction jobs require specific skills (e.g., the skills to work as an electrician, plumber, truck driver, or equipment operator). Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-37 i[F 59110 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative The introduction of new retail and commercial space within the Planned Action Study Area would increase employment opportunities. These opportunities would benefit all study area populations but could benefit minority and low-income populations to a greater degree. Also, minority and low- income populations would have access to the jobs to the same degree as the non -minority and non - low -income populations. However, because the types of jobs and wages are not known, it cannot be determined if these would be living -wage jobs or if they would be lower wage jobs that would not improve household incomes, especially for lower income households. This is not anticipated to result in any adverse impacts that could be disproportionately high and adverse. 3.11.1.4 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts would be primarily beneficial. As the Planned Action Study Area continues to redevelop with new investments, both public and private, it would become more desirable for the residents and continue to create new jobs. New development and the addition of more market -rate units could cause the Planned Action Study Area to become less affordable to lower income populations, which could result in these populations needing to relocate outside of the Planned Action Study Area. 3.11.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea This section discusses the impacts on environmental justice populations that are specific to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. 3.11.2.1 Construction Impacts Residents in proximity to NE Sunset Boulevard could be affected by construction. Impacts would be the same as those described above for the Planned Action Study Area. Demolition of the Sunset Terrace complex and construction of the Preferred Alternative would require relocation of the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex, likely through Section 8 vouchers. Because the tenants are low-income and predominately minority individuals, this would constitute a greater impact on these populations than it would on other populations. Relocation of the tenants, potentially outside of the immediate area, could also result in additional temporary impacts related to being farther from their jobs, social services, transit, and the community. Relocated tenants would be compensated through the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. This act establishes uniform, fair, and equitable treatment of displaced individuals and businesses. With this compensation, these impacts are not considered disproportionately high and adverse on minority or low-income populations. Tenants would be relocated prior to construction of each new housing phase; those tenants remaining during the construction of early redevelopment phases would be subject to impacts related to the noise and dust anticipated during demolition. However, no adverse impacts are anticipated because demolition activities would need to comply with all Iocal, state, federal regulations, which could include removal of lead-based paint and ACMs. During construction, none of the impacts would be considered disproportionately high and adverse because the relocated tenants would be provided assistance, as described above. In addition, impacts associated with construction activities would be temporary, and mitigation measures would be included to minimize them. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-38 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton 3.11.2.2 Operational Impacts Chapter 3. Environmental Review cf Preferred Alternative With the implementation of the Preferred Alternative, the 100 existing Sunset Terrace public housing units would be replaced at a 1 -to -1 ratio on site or in the surrounding neighborhood. An additional 10 duplex units would be redeveloped with townhouse -style housing that could be affordable or market rate. Current public housing and duplex tenants would be offered the opportunity to move into new units in the subarea, which would occur in a rebuilt mixed-use setting with new parks/open space, new landscaping and pedestrian facilities, a senior day health center, and a new library and/or community service facility. There would be beneficial health effects associated with the new housing, especially if the old housing (constructed in 1959) contains any lead-based paint or ACMs. Beneficial effects for minority and low-income populations in the subarea would include redevelopment of the existing dwelling units, construction of additional units, transportation improvements, and the addition of other community facilities (i,e., a senior day health center and parks). These changes would result in improvements to public health and the aesthetics of the subarea. Furthermore, these would improve community cohesion for subarea residents. Because no adverse impacts are anticipated, there are no impacts that would be considered disproportionately high and adverse. Subarea residents would realize the beneficial effects associated with improvements in the Planned Action Study Area. These beneficial effects would accrue to all populations, including minority and low-income populations, in particular, and include the improvements along NE Sunset Boulevard related to wider sidewalks, the bicycle facilities, transit improvements for those who rely on other modes of travel, and the addition of new parks and open space. Additionally civic facilities would be a benefit for the entire Renton community, including those outside of the subarea, and would serve as gathering places that would enhance community cohesion. Because the improvements would result in beneficial effects, no adverse impacts and, therefore, no disproportionately high and adverse impacts are anticipated during operation. 3.11,2.3 Indirect Impacts New retail and commercial space would be located outside of the subarea, but the new employment opportunities could be more beneficial to subarea residents who may be unemployed or without a vehicle. Therefore, they would benefit more from the proximity. Because the types of businesses that would be located in the subarea and the corresponding wages of the jobs they would provide are unknown, the extent of benefits to low-income individuals cannot be determined. The new job opportunities could provide health care benefits for those who were formerly unemployed; however, if newly employed individuals are not offered health benefits, or they decide not to participate in the health care plan because of the costs associated with it, they would lose access to public assistance. In this case, the potential loss of access to health care would be an adverse impact. Increasing the variety of residential unit types and affordability levels would reduce the concentration of low-income households in the subarea and thereby reduce or eliminate some of the social consequences of such concentrations. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-39 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 553.10 City of Renton 3.11.2.4 Cumulative Impacts Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative The cumulative impacts identified above under the Planned Action Study Area are not anticipated within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea because the public housing units would be replaced and other affordable, public, and market -rate units would be developed. Public units would be administered by RHA. The beneficial cumulative impacts identified above under the Planned Action Study Area would be similar. 3.11.3 Mitigation Measures There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative. 3.12 Aesthetics Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. 3.12.1 Planned Action Study Area 3.12.1.1 Visual Character Similar to Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative would result in public and private development that would take full advantage of the current development regulations, which would cause a long- term transition to a mixed-use, pedestrian -oriented neighborhood with higher density than the current development pattern. The Preferred Alternative would result in slightly less growth than Alternative 3 overall, which would result in less change to the existing visual environment. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, the Preferred Alternative would distribute growth mostly to the Sunset Mixed Use Subarea. However, there would be a slight redistribution of growth from the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea to the Central Subarea because the Preferred Alternative would relocate Sunset Court Park from its current location in the Central Subarea to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, and correspondingly, the current park site would become available for redevelopment into housing units. Similar to Alternative 3, the right-of-way for NE Sunset Boulevard would be expanded to make room for additional pedestrian amenities such as bike lanes, planted medians, and enlarged sidewalks, all of which would provide increased aesthetic appeal to the area. The urban density anticipated to result from the Preferred Alternative would be similar to, but slightly less than, Alternative 3. The application of adopted design standards as new construction gradually replaces older buildings would result in an overall improvement of the visual environment in the Planned Action Study Area. Overall, changes to visual character would be within the range of the Draft EIS alternatives. 3.12.1.2 Height and Bulk Similar to Alternative 3, the tallest building heights under the Preferred Alternative would occur on property zoned CV, which is concentrated in the Sunset Mixed Use, Central, and Potential Sunset Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-40 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.30 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative Terrace Redevelopment subareas. In these areas, the Preferred Alternative would result in building heights up to five stories, which is a moderate increase over the prevailing pattern of one- to three- story buildings. Similar to the Draft EIS alternatives, heights along NE Sunset Boulevard are very likely to reach 60 feet because residential buildings in this area are required to include ground -floor retail uses (RMC 4-2-080A73). Relocation of Sunset Court Park under the Preferred Alternative would provide a greater amount of open space in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, which would reduce the visual bulk of redevelopment in this location. The current park site, located in the Central Subarea, would become available for redevelopment, increasing building heights and visual bulk at this location. Overall, the Preferred Alternative would result in result in less growth within the Planned Action Study Area than Alternative 3, and changes to height and bulk are anticipated to be within the range of the Draft EIS alternatives. 3.12.1.3 Shade and Shadow Under the Preferred Alternative, heights in the Planned Action Study Area would generally increase, creating localized increases in shading over current conditions. Similar to Alternative 3, taller buildings in the Planned Action Study Area have the potential to shade pedestrian areas and public spaces, especially along NE Sunset Boulevard. Public spaces, such as school playfields and parks, could also be shaded, but these areas are typically surrounded by zoning districts that do not permit building heights over 30 feet, limiting the potential for severe shading effects. An exception is the current Sunset Court Park site, which is surrounded by CV zoning. Under the Preferred Alternative, Sunset Court Park would be relocated to a larger site in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, thereby reducing the potential for shading effects in the park. However, the current park site would then become available for redevelopment, which would increase the potential for on-site shading effects and shading of adjacent buildings. Similar to Alternative 3, the application of development regulations and mitigation measures, such as upper -story setbacks and roof -form modulation, will be necessary to minimize shading impacts at this location. 3.12.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 3.12.2.1 Visual Character Similar to Alternative 3, the visual character of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would change from its current state to a pedestrian -oriented community with a mix of residential, ground -floor commercial, and community uses. The Preferred Alternative would focus less residential development in the subarea than Alternative 3, making room for a larger neighborhood park. As described in Chapter 2, the Preferred Alternative would vacate a portion of Harrington Avenue NE and Glenwood Avenue NE to create a 2.65 -acre central park at Sunset Terrace. While the Preferred Alternative would extensively change the visual character of the subarea, the reduction in residential development and increase in park space, compared with Alternative 3, would result in an overall improvement to the visual environment that would be within the range of the Draft EIS alternatives. 3.12.2.2 Height and Bulk Building height and bulk within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under the Preferred Alternative would range from one to four stories, which is similar to Alternative 3. The Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 41 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative, however, would provide much more park space than Alternative 3, providing a sense of openness to the Sunset Terrace site. In addition, buildings on the site would be arranged to place two-story townhomes adjacent to the park and taller multifamily residential buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard, creating a height transition and reducing the visual prominence of the development when viewed from the park. The proposed site layout of the Preferred Alternative is illustrated in Figure 2-11. The Preferred Alternative would also offer reduced visual bulk over Alternative 3 at the RHA property on Glenwood Avenue NE, northwest of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex. Rather than a single large structure, the Preferred Alternative would include two multifamily buildings in scale with the nearby apartment complexes along Edmonds Avenue NE and two townhome buildings, the heights of which would be compatible with the adjacent duplexes along Glenwood Avenue NE. Overall, the Preferred Alternative would direct less density into the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea than Alternative 3 and provide a greater amount of open space, which would keep height and bulk in the area within the range of the Draft EIS alternatives. 3.12.2.3 Shade and Shadow Similar to Alternative 3, anticipated increases to building heights under the Preferred Alternative are likely to change shading conditions in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. As described under Alternative 3, taller buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard would cast longer shadows on the interior of the subarea to the north, potentially shading sidewalks along Sunset Lane NE. However, the increased size of the central park under the Preferred Alternative, as well as the placement of two-story townhomes adjacent to the park, would reduce the potential for adverse shading effects compared with Alternative 3. Also, as illustrated in Figure 2-11, the proposed site layout for the Preferred Alternative would reduce height conflicts and shading effects on surrounding development by locating taller buildings away from nearby residences and using shorter buildings as a buffer. Overall, shading effects in the subarea would be more limited than under Alternative 3, placing the Preferred Alternative within the range of the Draft EIS alternatives. 3.12.3 Mitigation Measures There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative. 3.13 Historic/Cultural Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. 3.13.1 Planned Action Study Area Impacts on cultural resources in the Planned Action Study Area under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those described in the Draft EIS. The Preferred Alternative supports a level of Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-42 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative neighborhood growth similar to but slightly less than Alternative 3. Development would proceed in more locations than Alternative 2 but fewer locations than Alternative 3. It would still likely involve ground disturbance and modifications to buildings and structures, which could result in a potentially significant impact on cultural resources. Under the Preferred Alternative, there would be more opportunities to encounter cultural resources over time than under the No Action Alternative but fewer than under Alternative 3. Because of the potential to affect unknown cultural resources, detailed review of potential impacts on cultural resources would still be required on a project - specific basis. No significant cultural resources are known to exist in the Planned Action Study Area, except for the property identified as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP): 2825 NE Sunset Boulevard. Future development in the study area would not affect any known NRHP-eligible archaeological or historic resources, unless it occurs on the same parcel as the resources or results in the discovery of a previously unknown resource. As with the other studied alternatives, the potential for impacts on unknown cultural resources under the Preferred Alternative cannot be measured. The only archaeological or historic resource surveys that have been completed in the study area include a survey of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, a survey of the Hillcrest Terrace Community Building project at 1430 Hillcrest Lane NE (part of a separate environmental assessment),z and a survey of potential development sites on Kirkland Avenue NE between 15th and 16th streets, 2902 NE 12th Street, and 1104 Harrington Avenue NE (see Final EIS Appendix G). The latter two surveys have been completed since issuance of the Draft EIS. None of these studies identified the presence of significant cultural resources. Other portions of the study area have not been surveyed. All alternatives accommodate future growth in the Planned Action Study Area, which could occur on any property in the Planned Action Study Area and have the potential to affect unknown cultural resources. Therefore, potential impacts on unknown cultural resources would be the same under the Preferred Alternative as the other alternatives, although the rate and timing of these impacts would vary. 3.13.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Future development in the subarea under the Preferred Alternative would have no impact on any known NRNP -eligible archaeological or historic resources, and the likelihood of impacts on unknown cultural resources is considered low. These conclusions are based on the results of the archaeological investigations and the historic resources survey completed for the subarea (Draft EIS Appendix J). Development in the subarea would have the same low potential to affect cultural resources under any alternative, either through infill development on vacant sites or through redevelopment of the subarea. 2 At the time of this Draft EIS, RHA is considering the addition of a community and laundry building on its Hillcrest Terrace site north of NE 16th Street and west of Kirkland Avenue NE. As an independent action, it is undergoing its own NEPA environmental review process. A finding of No Significance was issued in February 2011 by the City of Renton and is available at the lead agency offices (see Final EIS fact sheet for contact information). Section 106 consultation showed that the Hiticrest Terrace site is not considered to be an eligible historic resource. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3 43 ICF 593.1a City of Renton 3.13.3 Mitigation Measures Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative Mitigations measures and conclusions of adverse impact under the Preferred Alternative would be the same as those described in the Draft EIS and presented in Chapter 1 of this Final EIS. A clarification on mitigation measures related to unanticipated discoveries is included in Chapters 1 and 4 of this Final EIS. 3.14 Transportation Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Future -year traffic impacts with and without project improvements are evaluated in this section. The future -conditions analysis is conducted for two horizon years: 2015 and 2030. 3.14.1 Planned Action Study Area 3.14.1.1 Study Area The Planned Action Study Area is the same as that analyzed in the Draft EIS. It includes roadways that are within the jurisdictions of the City and WSDOT and represent existing traffic conditions in the core of the Planned Action Study Area. The traffic study area is bordered by NE 12th Street to the north, NE Sunset Boulevard to the south, Monroe Avenue NE to the east, and Edmonds Avenue NE to the west. Study area intersections are shown in Figure 314-1 and listed in Table 3.14-1. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-44 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Figure 3.14-1. Traffic Study Area and Study Intersections NE 19th 51 r w SNE 2 uU Z e�u.rn Ngncmds m NE 16th Si { i Z o Co s V E Q Nai tai g NES w NE nth PF SN 91H3 MP 12,46 1 Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative NE 14th 51 NE 17th PI NE 17th St MM% Sunset Blvd 9 c � c f E 12th St wo; sansei � - c�s cti hQ' x Z aF a 2 � a � � �eNE NE loth PI NE 10th 5% NE 9th PI NE 9th PI t4 NF H F Table 3.14-1. Study Intersections NE lith N NE 11th St z NE 10th PI g o NE loth CT m NZ G !pm Sf t4 N£ 10th Ln Z " M NE 10th St Z NOTE: State route milepost 12.46 is identified as milepost 13.Ooa in the 2009 State Highway Log. Intersection # Intersection Jurisdiction Control 1 NE Sunset Blvd and NE Park Dr WSDOT Signalized 2 NE Sunset Blvd and Edmonds Ave NE WSDOT Signalized 3 NE Sunset Blvd and Harrington Ave NE WSDOT Signalized 4 NE Sunset Blvd and NE 10th St WSDOT Signalized 5 NE Sunset Blvd and Kirkland Ave NE WSDOT OWSC 6 NE Sunset Blvd and NE 12th St WSDOT Signalized 7 NE Sunset Blvd and Monroe Ave NE WSDOT OWSC 8 Edmonds Ave NE and NE 12th St City AWSC 9 Harrington Ave NE and NE 12th St City AWSC 10 Kirkland Ave NE and NE 12th St City AWSC OWSC = one-way stop control; AWSC = all -way stop control Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-45 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Afternative 3.14.1.2 Trip Generation and Distribution Trips generated by the Preferred Alternative in the Planned Action Study Area were estimated using the City's version of the Puget Sound Regional Council regional travel forecasting model, with applied future -year proposed land uses. This methodology is consistent with the forecast modeling process described for Alternative 1 (No Action), AIternative 2, and Alternative 3 in the Draft EIS. In 2030, the Preferred Alternative would have approximately 850 more households or dwellings than Alternative 1 but approximately 170 fewer households or dwellings than Alternative 3, the bookends of the Draft EIS analysis. The Preferred Alternative is also expected to have approximately 2,240 additional employment positions compared with AIternative 1 but 180 fewer employment positions than Alternative 3. Roughly 40°x6 of the households and employment positions expected as part of the Preferred Alternative would be in place by 2015. Using the future -year regional travel forecasting model to evaluate the Preferred Alternative, an overall growth rate for traffic in the Planned Action Study Area was calculated for both 2015 and 2030. Compared with Alternative 1 volumes, traffic under the Preferred Alternative would be approximately 4% higher in 2015 and approximately 9% higher in 2030. These growth rates were applied to base traffic volumes at each intersection to develop future Preferred AIternative volumes. Traffic expected under the Preferred Alternative would be less than traffic estimated for Alternative 3 because of fewer households and employment positions. In both 2015 and 2030, Preferred Alternative traffic would be approximately 1% lower than traffic under Alternative 3. Future traffic patterns in the Preferred Alternative would be different from Alternative 1 but similar to Alternative 3 at multiple intersections along NE Sunset Boulevard. The proposed design of the Preferred Alternative would include closing (vacating) Harrington Avenue NE between NE Sunset Lane and NE 10th Street. This closure would Iikely reduce the number of vehicles that use Harrington Avenue NE to reach NE Sunset Boulevard because the direct connection would be severed. Vehicles that head southbound on Harrington Avenue NE would likely be diverted to NE 10th Street (or possibly Edmonds Avenue NE) to access NE Sunset Boulevard. The signalized intersection at NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE would essentially provide a connection for local traffic only, whereas the signalized intersection at NE 10th would likely become the main access route for local traffic destined for points north of the Planned Action Study Area. Approximately 80% of traffic to and from the north leg of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE would be shifted to the NE 10th Street intersection because of the closure. The Preferred Alternative design would restrict vehicles from crossing NE Sunset Boulevard at Kirkland Avenue NE. This intersection currently allows access to and from all approaches. As part of the proposed design, a dedicated eastbound left -turn pocket on NE Sunset Boulevard would be created to provide refuge for vehicles headed northbound on Kirkland Avenue NE. This turn pocket would restrict westbound vehicles on NE Sunset Avenue from making a left turn onto Kirkland Avenue NE southbound, and vehicles on Kirkland Avenue NE would no longer be able to cross NE Sunset Boulevard. Kirkland Avenue NE would be restricted to right -in, right -out access only. Traffic displaced by the proposed turn pocket would he routed through adjacent study intersections to their intended destinations. Access safety improvements would be implemented on NE Sunset Boulevard. The center two-way left -turn lane would be replaced with a managed left -turn lane and median that would provide left turns at intersections and high-volume driveways. This design would reduce the number of possible Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3 46 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative conflict points between opposing directions of traffic and likely improve safety along the corridor. With fewer conflict points, the design would likely improve mobility within the traffic study area. 3.14.1.3 Operational Analysis Future -year traffic impacts with project improvements are analyzed in this section. The analysis evaluates the Preferred Alternative, which assumes the proposed improvements and developments within the Planned Action Study Area are in place and that traffic generated by these developments are on the street network. Level of service (LOS) results of the proposed Preferred Alternative are also compared with results of Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 as documented in the Draft EIS. Traffic operations for the Preferred 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. Future conditions analysis of the Preferred Alternative is conducted for the weekday PM peak hour for two horizon years: 2015 and 2030. In 2030, two intersections would operate at LOS F under the Preferred Alternative. Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street would have approximately 96 seconds of delay per vehicle. This is 39 seconds more per vehicle than the level of delay under Alternative 1 but 3 seconds less than the level expected under Alternative 3. Vehicles at Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street are expected to have approximately 67 seconds of delay with the Preferred Alternative. This is 2 seconds per vehicle less than the level of delay that would be experienced by vehicles under Alternative 3 but an increase of approximately 31 seconds per vehicle compared with Alternative 1. LOS under the Preferred Alternative would degrade to LDS F from LOS E (under Alternative 1). In 2015, average delay at Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street would be approximately 54 seconds per vehicle. This is 2 seconds less than the vehicle delay under Alternative 3 (56 seconds per vehicle) but 11 seconds per vehicle greater than Alternative 1 and would result in a one -level drop to LOS F. The expected operational LOS and delay results under the Preferred Alternative are presented in Table 3.14-2. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3 47 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3, Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative Table 3.142. Intersection Operations --Preferred Alternative Int # Intersection Control Preferred Alternative PM Peak 2015 2030 LOS Delay(s) LOS Delays) 1 NE Sunset Blvd and NE Park Dr Signalized A 9.2 B 11.5 2 NE Sunset Blvd and Edmonds Ave NE Signalized B 12.0 B 13.7 3 NE Sunset Blvd and Harrington Ave NE Signalized A 6.6 A 8.2 4 NE Sunset Blvd and NE 10th St Signalized B 14.6 C 20.2 5 NE Sunset Blvd and Kirkland Ave NE OWSC B 10.3 B 11.0 6 NE Sunset Blvd and NE 12th St Signalized C 24.1 D 36.9 7 NE Sunset Blvd and Monroe Ave NE OWSC B 15.0 C 15.6 8 Edmonds Ave NE and NE 12th St AWSC F 54.2 F 96.3 9 Harrington Ave NE and NE 12th St AWSC D 34.6 F 67.1 10 Kirkland Ave NE and NE 12th St AWSC B 12.8 B 14.2 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 the City LOS D threshold. LOS at Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street and at Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street would be worse than the City's LOS D threshold as a result of the increase in trips generated by the Preferred Alternative. The additional trip demand on the traffic study area network during the PM peak would exceed capacity at the affected intersections. Intersection turning -movement volumes, delay, and LOS are presented in Figures 3.14-2 and 3.14-3, while the detailed intersection analysis results are included in Final EIS Appendix H. 3.14.1.4 Construction Impacts Potential impacts that could result from Preferred Alternative construction activities include increased traffic volumes, increased delays, detours, and road closures. These activities are the same as described for Alternative 3 in the Draft EIS. During construction, vehicles would be needed to bring equipment and materials to the Planned Action Study Area. Large, heavy, slow-moving trucks carrying materials and equipment would likely need to access the site via NE Sunset Boulevard. Oversized trucks could require pilot vehicles as they travel to and from the freeway with large loads. These trucks may also require flaggers to manually divert or control traffic as they enter or exit roadways (due to large turning radii). This traffic maintenance would cause delays for motorists. Lane closures in both directions of NE Sunset Boulevard could be required during construction of the Preferred Alternative. This reduction in capacity would likely increase travel times and may force reroutes through lower volume local streets. Depending on the necessary workforce, an increase in the number of personnel vehicles may also affect traffic operations within the Planned Action Study Area, especially during the PM peak when construction ends for the day. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-48 April 2411 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 11 z Z o 4444 m W '�, 3Nan/NuawP3 m Y � P N ~ w �+ � N N «t► r�� W Z � � PN6Jas�JnS]N m mtl� z W n q Z pO�jl �o O 'E 3Ntl �J�JlsJJJN a r7 M N N ► m 2 -- z PVAJarun53N 0] N Z 5,w ui 3N eny a0iUO" z z $� Monroe Ave NE 0! sr 0 z 3N any PUeIVIN uosaapf Vi Index Ave NE IS- w- Ss zZ Z 3N any uoa6uwe0 P3 Q 3N and PUellipA Z r �pj r4i w .. AIL Zirvans�ei6�uJaN a 2 T N m �.M I „_ All Z y t �w i NP �] o Ike � 3H anMx'+uoyy 4)41 � a _ j/ m �t:� S ASN N 3:) U01% EL M us f/1 r^1 z Lw LU L ^ 4 $ ui t ui Z a z Z L as Ln 0 N 2 CL J J_ I I m v [C1 M W 4� toa LL � v Q) Q} d 0 m d tV U m 7 0 x Y m w Q. C J J_ 2 X Q Ln w Q_ LU Ln a 4 W z m c U- C O a 67 C C d C E 0 u m a` 41 N 41 C 3 4/i .�► r� �m *9* W � 3N s^Yspuouq� Z C6 PM@I��S3N Z � 4 PyYNwS3N C Z � W 3N NYP�WN91 73 o n C 1p � r yg t49 it 4 9 41* z � +O+PPJ3N � yyaxY�oieP�if � 3Ns.e P"�IW °B Z 3N anY�P+7W+�W1 vi a vi n sn S M M YI � N p1 ry r4 - 3N aAV aO,uoyv z z x t $ Monroe Ave NE � o o N + i � 3N T'YSP'bu'P3 z Tel0 3N "V Puel)p!N W + M LU 0 m 3N BAYPUL)III!N tai ti ��4 � ��► r o � U � 3Nanpiw�iv index Ave NE IS r Y ,r F% 4�T OD �1 a z W� z pveN Ha N i M ~ 3N aAy uoi$uwp LU Gienrwoc� P3 0 © LU z UO eQ I Lu z W Z n E z C $ E f f « m� ri _ a 0 E E Z � 00 10 t .rv.. m v [C1 M W 4� toa LL � v Q) Q} d 0 m d tV U m 7 0 x Y m w Q. C J J_ 2 X Q Ln w Q_ LU Ln a 4 W z m c U- C O a 67 C C d C E 0 u m a` 41 N 41 C 3 4/i City of Renton 3.14.1.5 Transit Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would include improved transit amenities along NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE compared with existing conditions. At both Edmonds Avenue NE and at NE 10th Street along NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE south of NE Sunset Boulevard, expanded bus zones in both directions of travel would provide larger waiting areas for transit users and be conveniently located near residential or retail land uses. Bus zones and existing bus stops could include shelters with adequate lighting and street furniture. All bus stops within the Planned Action Study Area would be improved to meet accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Transit stops are located adjacent to pedestrian and bicycle facilities, which encourages the use of alternative modes of travel. Special pavement in the roadway would clearly identify transit stops on NE Sunset Boulevard. 3.14.1.6 Nonmotorized Facilities Under the Preferred Alternative, nonmotorized facilities, such as bicycle lanes and pathways, sidewalks, and marked crosswalks, would be improved. A 12 -foot -wide multi -use trail would be provided on the north side of NE Sunset Boulevard from Edmonds Avenue NE to Monroe Avenue NE to accommodate pedestrians and bikes. A 5 -foot -wide designated bicycle lane would be provided in the eastbound direction of NE Sunset Boulevard between NE Park Drive and NE 10th Street. This eastbound bike lane would improve safety for bicyclists riding up the steep grade between NE Park Drive and NE 10th Street. Design elements such as bike route signage, bike storage lockers, and bicycle detection at signalized intersections are included to promote bike ridership and safety. Pedestrian improvements under the Preferred Alternative would include reconstructed sidewalks and planter strips or landscaping buffers along NE Sunset Boulevard and most traffic study area roadways. An 8 -foot -wide planter area would separate an 8 -foot -wide sidewalk from the roadway, contributing to a more comfortable environment for walking along the state highway. In some locations, the existing chain link fence would be replaced with a vegetated trellis on top of walls along sidewalks to create a more inviting environment for pedestrians. Furthermore, pedestrian - scale lighting would improve safety and walkability. Sidewalk connections from NE Sunset Boulevard to side streets would be improved, strengthening the connectivity between the residential areas and NE Sunset Boulevard. To improve safety for pedestrians crossing the roadways, the Preferred Alternative would include special paving at crosswalks and intersections. Special paving can more clearly identify pedestrian areas and alert drivers to proceed with caution, which can contribute to a safer pedestrian environment. All curb ramps within the project area would meet ADA accessibility requirements. Pedestrian -supportive signals, such as count -down heads and audible signals, would be provided with the Preferred Alternative to improve safety for pedestrians crossing the roadways at signalized intersections. Other pedestrian -level design amenities such as benches, trash receptacles, wayfinding signs, and art would be incorporated to encourage pedestrian activity in the Planned Action Study Area. 3.14.1.7 Sustainability In consideration of the emerging best practices in the United States for addressing sustainability at the municipal level, sustainability metrics were used to evaluate the alternatives. The Greenroads Rating System is a sustainability evaluation metric to certify the "sustainability' of roadways. (See the Draft EIS for a description of the Greenroads rating system.) The Greenroads evaluation for the Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-51 April 2411 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative is found in Final EIS Appendix H. The Preferred Alternative scores a minimum of 33 and a maximum of up to 99 out of 118 points in the Greenroads metric; therefore, it meets the minimum Greenroads certification level and could achieve the highest level of certification (Evergreen). Similar to Draft EIS Alternatives 2 and 3, the Preferred Alternative scores most strongly in the "Access and Equity" section of the Greenroads evaluation because improving access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users is an important element of this alternative. Similar to Draft EIS Alternatives 2 and 3, improving walkability, pedestrian connections, and transit facilities as part of the Preferred Alternative is likely to contribute to lower consumption of energy by encouraging more pedestrian activity and less vehicle travel. The Preferred Alternative is similar to Alternative 3 in that it typically includes higher levels of improvements or higher quality of improvements over Alternative 2, such as wider sidewalks, wider planting areas, and special paving. 3.14.1.8 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Growth would increase in comparison to Comprehensive Plan land use estimates; however, the operational analysis is based on a model that addresses growth cumulatively on the City's current and planned roadway system. Potential cumulative impacts are greater than Alternative 1 but less than Alternative 3. These impacts can be mitigated to meet City of Renton thresholds. 3.14.2 Mitigation Measures 3.14.2.1 Operational Mitigation In 2030, the intersections on NE 12th Street at Edmonds Avenue NE and at Harrington Avenue NE are expected to operate at LOS F under the Preferred Alternative. This exceeds the LOS D mobility standard during the PM peak hour. The turn -lane capacity improvements and demand management strategies at Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street described in the Draft EIS are valid and applicable mitigation measures for the Preferred Alternative. 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 of the suggested mitigation measures described in the Draft EIS, this intersection would improve to LOS D. Please see Final EIS Chapter 1 for a list of mitigation measures applicable to all studied alternatives. 3.14.2.2 Construction Mitigation Temporary mitigation during construction may be necessary to ensure safe travel and manage traffic delays. Because the Preferred Alternative would likely have identical construction impacts as Alternative 3, the construction mitigation measures described in the Draft EIS are valid and Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-52 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative applicable to the Preferred Alternative. Please see Final EIS Chapter 1 for a list of mitigation measures applicable to all studied alternatives. 3.14.3 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea In the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, traffic delay times could worsen slightly over Alternative 1 because of the increase in trips generated by the Preferred Alternative, but intersections would likely operate better than the LOS D threshold because the volumes and growth would be similar to those of Alternative 3. On the southern border of the subarea, the intersections on NE Sunset Boulevard at Harrington Avenue NE and at NE 10th Street are expected to operate better than LOS B in 2015 and better than LOS C in 2030. These intersections serve as a gateway into and out of the subarea. Stop -controlled intersections within the subarea are likely to have lower volumes and more capacity than either intersection on NE Sunset Boulevard. Because these locations likely carry low, mainly residential volumes and are not nearing their capacities, they are not expected to operate worse than LOS D. 3.15 Parks and Recreation Park and recreation impacts are discussed at two levels for the Preferred Alternative: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts of developing proposed conceptual plans within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. The basis for comparing these impacts are Renton's adopted park and recreation LOS standards, which are outlined in Section 3.15 of the Draft EIS. This section discusses the future conditions of park and recreation facilities within the Planned Action Study Area and the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under the Preferred Alternative. Study area facilities are evaluated for future conditions (2030) by applying the City's park and recreation LOS standards. Future deficiencies or surpluses in park and recreation facilities provide the basis for determining what type and how much of each facility could be added to the Planned Action Study Area to serve the forecast population. Anticipated future LOS conditions for park and recreation facilities for the Preferred Alternative were calculated by applying the same methodology used to evaluate the three alternatives discussed in the Draft EIS. Refer to Section 4.15.1 of the Draft EIS for the background discussion of the LOS calculation methodology. Table 3.15-1 summarizes the LOS for parks within the Planned Action Study Area under existing and future conditions for each alternative; Figure 3.15-1 illustrates the location and service area around the parks consistent with adopted LOS standards. Table 3.15-2 summarizes the LOS for recreation facilities (fields, courts, and trails). It should be noted that ballfield and sport court LOS standards are applied citywide; thus, a lack of such facilities within the Planned Action Study Area or the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea does not indicate an LOS deficiency. Refer to Final EIS Appendix I for the park and recreation LOS calculations. The mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those discussed in the Draft EIS for Alternatives 2 and 3. Refer to Chapter 1 of the Final EIS for the summary of mitigation measures for park and recreation facilities. These mitigation measures address construction impacts as well as improved availability or access to parks and recreation facilities in the Planned Action Study Area and the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3 53 1CF 553.10 1CF Figure 3.15-1 Parks and Recreation Facility Service Areas INTERNATIONAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS City Limits S€ 93RD Sr Q Planned Action Study Area WAY SE95TK Water ° 5()0 1,000 NE 16TH 5T ��Ivy Parcels z�HS NE 17TH ST May Creek Park e• �••_ _. _ _„` ��• Parks and Recreation Facilities r NE 27TH PL School Sports Field (approx. area) Park ' SE 98THST "�••— Sierra Heights Ste, Sunset Court C3Service Area (D.5 H ST Kenn ydale NE 25TIi'ST --.N . _„ Park mile) s8 Lions Park t� North Highlands Park N€ 13TH ST LLQ, �li ©Service Area (D.5 mile) � te- NE 22ND PL Highlands Park W NE 22ND 5T arn ti © Service Area (1 mile) z Hillcrest 0�� •'�NE 21ST ST N ,w Elementary cc UJIN€19TH Uj Uj ST 1CF Figure 3.15-1 Parks and Recreation Facility Service Areas INTERNATIONAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS ° 5()0 1,000 NE 16TH 5T ��Ivy North Highlands NE 17TH ST Park McKnight Middle �Fp U� School s8 N€ 13TH ST LLQ, NE 12TH ST Gene Coulon Memorial Beach ParkEppRKIDR Sunset kourt Uj Uj z NE 11TH ST ars( LU w `” G�i0 ,., �Q �`x � 1 Highlands NEZO1y,Sr a NE 10TH ST cL Kiwanis Park fi �m 70. y 0 Elementary NE 9ry pL .4- JZ NE9THST w W Z L" N STH ST �° .0 y ---•- NFSTNSr = to Z W j NEBTHST a �EgTY1pL R elE��S� of 7TH ST d d Zz LU /z LU Highlands Park La z j O NE6rHpt N 6TH 5T L a Z NE 6TH ST LU W a ¢ o w Q CC a l7 Windsor NE STH PL Y a tyE 5TK ST NES TH 5T ¢ rr Hills Park sti j NE 47)q NE 4TH PL N 4TH 5T NE 4TH ST mV ,1• a N 3RQ ST Heritage Park �2 u N 2ND 5T �t3�D51 NE 2ND PL 4,lfj NE 2ND ST S-.. Liberty Park � NE IST PL Cedar River Park Sr ` SE 157 PL V ut a > 5E xtAD CZ Z Okn Ff w a SE 2ND PL r a Z —SE•3RD,ST�� O Z y IQ c� SE 4TH 5T Cedar River Natural Area j 5E 4TN 51 n Source: City of`Renton 1CF Figure 3.15-1 Parks and Recreation Facility Service Areas INTERNATIONAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS d C7 a .a O a di fG a N a+ RS LL Y N Q. 4- IV W) O O! 3 LL LL C ro oo C h x w .-1 Lh ri M cu m Im- >, , o o m N M Ln R U M = cc n ,n co � `�' LO d' \-o U LIOL O Lfj C 03 N U m zC„ O R U U � L v 0 W V V) L G U OL., y 03 N co n d' LO H p E . d n u'] v La SC N Q Lr H 03 m M n L L Gp � co 00 S -i Ctl O Ln V U_ � Ln ll'1 m n OD N LO Vl a% n Q tn a ad H Q y H ryi UfC v Cn C/7 U y •4 _Q '� � M C Ln V O O 00 In Q i] I- C v N O C O N Q Q cq U C 4 O bA Cil CD q O .a ed OLn w a C -q �^ m N CUC O r4 Ste. jtj \.nM G � A,v y C� C� Lf] N � O O O DD O d^ � a E O o_' v E a 4; O C C C V) C% .--I i M OD i H -4 � z U z U u C.7 �. N N N r, C Q >n co MCO H O O n `p n N fi yy p [] d' If LY7 H �D n M �C� L M t4 H H H co m 0, p N .N-1 W Gn M n H H aLO @ co n d, M H It� o m co. C, Lfi \.D �p M i v vCr H O lO cop �O cc Q m LO N GJ 6 rl 07 O N N p C L N Lf} C) n in m m 000 Q r -I Ln O T 4 N N M N C:, 4 N N N + N l� t N m w a mrq H H N Lam. Cr m n � r -I NN LO N rA u O _ _ L) w _M "' ai 711 U U U o O v o cu W o � o o C/) 43 H o a O o tora L P. U IIs. z R, 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 C O CJ C C �bn 0 C �b�4 a .[ x x In � tjo Z zx aw Z cna. , o o m N M R U (4 U U LIOL V C U R U U � L V V) L G U H L cu L C b 7 73 c .,n O v La SC O O CL d 0 L L Gp � S -i Ctl O Ln V U_ � ll'1 m •� y O C L? O N rn 0 a ad H Q y RS tL7 CC vUi d UfC v Cn U y •4 _Q '� C Ln V O O 00 In Q i] I- C v N O N Q Q cq U C 4 O bA Cil CD q O .a ed OLn w a uo L m N CUC O Ste. jtj G � OL a fV v v O O O CU a E O o_' v E a 4; O C C C U w .� E E r- ¢ w rc o 0 0 z U z U u C.7 �. ri 07 o Oi N � W in CO v m e100i13S Ilii CV ++ 41 En O M n1 O 'Q a Lm y U q w E O i b U O Ln [6 b y b w O L 4. = Ln f L U r Pco . cuEn W v v y N r o d N N T ON L� i) m m m W �O 00 d' m °¢ V� Imps jnoip m c'i N ri m o .-+ d 4 -49 o o L U S. yVi 0 Lam. U V1 d cu a d b a w '� � CuCJ 44 r7 w a. a u m vi O. 0 41 0 d r Ln 00 - 41 O cd p u Nil n M 10 t� w o0 3S u a pI i u N aCi N ` w Go N fn - t1.., v L U .a 4l �p M G O Q 'G +-'N N L. UO V'] N L [d O m 0 0 D Vs pLn Ln a y v 3 M U C4 N O y Q i N . U hra a%T _ y- N o0 N-4 4 4n ri Ln n d Q V j = loops inoillIM m r4 n1 r� m O O C L•'O ca t! ++ v L Q E D v :° ,y w .Q iF G%] Y f1. O O Q c v o R as ay 0 u �-i v, C' .0 o f o o ro a '3 C �, j r_ C E w �� o��_ — `�a oa bo w m cn f�5 M4 H 0 Yv, U F H m M U. E- E— + NcoelOOgz)s LMAAN r i m ri v > n iU. `O tir N O o cC. N =a"0 m G m O N n N N I� CD N m O cn a loops znollxi m N N r� N O r r 1 a LO m rn CO elooliJS IMAA rfi r4 m 6 LI rti O y N C° in Ln d d n m m m m DC14r-i N r -i N O -4 O -i a4 v �D O O N m CD p[oop]s iljI O U N v C a Y �q N en 6'+ Q� •• � j loall�s annual M ri m O a, O O . � ri co m r-1 �o O N �o O� U_ U V U r.N ` O N O .0 .V U U a U y U cn s. in c. cn V, cc ra D A A ra V) V) cn V)CA to °S r, N e[uuq:)s Ill[ •� b 7 L0. CC d 0 ai 4 O in M O. n W �, .fl a' � o •1 o L � Vj tn Y •� loollis jnogj! Oa N 4i `� y U V) U -(-u'0 o ^� o s-. � = w m E� W M -� to tM W � = E+ O o Oi N � a � VS V CL'J 41 O ++ 41 En O M M y U q w E i b U O Ln [6 L i O 'C L .. y b w O L 4. = Ln f L U r Pco . cuEn W v r o d cc M m o G °0 3 rCC N w O 4J -49 o o L U S. yVi 0 Lam. U V1 d cu d b a w '� � CuCJ 44 r7 w a. a u vi O. 0 41 0 d Ln � 4 - 41 O cd p u O L GS cd o aCi v U y U N fn - t1.., v L U .a 4l p ca C 4+ G � Cv3_ N L. UO V'] N L [d O m 0 0 D Vs pLn a U C4 N O y Q i N . U hra �' _ y- N o0 � ❑ :� v o ti +� a m E w x m yIj v. w O .C] N L, L m n y .� = Ln c cn O C L•'O ca t! ++ v Q E w a� .b a 0 [ p m v :° ,y w .Q iF G%] Y f1. O O Q c vi D O u O n R o R as ay 0 u �-i v, C' .0 o f o o ro a '3 C �, j r_ C E w �� o��_ — `�a oa bo w m cn f�5 M4 H 0 Yv, U F H m M U. E- E— + L LL City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative 3.15.1 Planned Action Study Area The forecast increase in population in the Planned Action Study Area is about 5,400 people under the Preferred Alternative. A corresponding increase in demand for park and recreation facilities is expected under the Preferred AIternative. Although there is an increase in community park acreage with the relocation Sunset Court Park to Sunset Terrace and the addition of a new multi -use trail (4,500 feet) along the western side of NE Sunset Boulevard, under the Preferred Alternative, there would continue to be a deficiency in neighborhood and community park acreage in the Planned Action Study Area (Table 3.15-1) and a deficiency in fields, courts, and trails (Table 3.15-2). However, the deficiencies are less than those for Draft EIS Alternative 3, which considered a similar population but proposed fewer park facilities. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, as discussed in Section 4.15 of the Draft EIS, opportunities to increase park land and recreation facilities within the Planned Action Study Area could include combining school recreation facilities with park facilities through joint -use agreements. Refer to Section 4.15 of the Draft EIS for the discussion regarding joint -use agreements. Within the Planned Action Study area, a "pocket park" system (Figure 2-18) could be created through a combination of publicly owned properties and vacant properties, along with pedestrian connections between blocks, a sidewalk network, and green connections. Stormwater elements could be incorporated into open space areas within the Planned Action Study Area under the Preferred Alternative. Under current policy, park property with co -located or integrated stormwater management facilities cannot be counted toward park/recreation acreage for purposes of meeting park LOS. See the water resources analysis (Final EIS Section 3.3) for a discussion of combining facilities. 3.15.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Similar to Alternatives 2 and 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, 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. This would increase the acreage in neighborhood parkland for this subarea and the Planned Action Study Area. Similar to AIternative 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, 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-57 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton 3,15.3 Mitigation Measures Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative. 3.16 Public Services Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two Ievels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. 3.16.1 Planned Action Study Area 3.16.1.1 Police Because the Preferred Alternative would involve development within the range of alternatives considered in the Draft EIS, construction -related impacts would be similar to those described for other alternatives in the Draft EIS and would fall within the range of Alternatives 2 to 3. Population in the Planned Action Study Area would increase by approximately 5,403 compared with existing conditions, resulting in a need for approximately 8.6 additional police officers when applying the Renton Police Department standard. This increase in police service need and increase in response time resulting from traffic congestion would fall within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3. 3.16.1.2 Fire and Emergency Medical Services Construction impacts and indirect impacts on response time would fall within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3, comparable to the relative amount of growth anticipated. Similar to other alternatives, centrally located Fire Station 12 and planned construction of other fire facilities, which could provide backup service to the Planned Action Study Area, would ensure that the City would maintain its fire and emergency medical service response time LOS under this alternative. Applying the fire service's staffing ratio to growth under the Preferred Alternative results in the need for an additional 1.2 firefighter full-time equivalent positions, slightly less than Alternative 3. 3.16.1.3 Education Both the McKnight Middle School expansion and the reconfiguration of the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center into part of the family village concept, as anticipated under Alternative 3, would be part of the Preferred Alternative. Similar to Alternative 3, the Early Education Program at the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center would likely be temporarily moved as part of the reconfiguration of that facility. Population growth under the Preferred Alternative would result in an increase of approximately 526 students at area Renton School District schools compared with existing conditions. This falls within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3. Growth in student population would have a similar but lesser impact on English Language Learners Program space than Alternative 3. The growth in student population would be accommodated by the district's planned capital improvements at the elementary, middle, and high school levels, including a reconfigured Hillcrest Early Childhood Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-58 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative Center as part of a family village concept that addresses both K-12 grades and early childhood education, as well as the fall 2011 opening of Honey Dew Elementary and the expansion of McKnight Middle School. 3.16.1.4 Health Care Population growth under the Preferred Alternative would fall within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3, resulting in the need for an estimated 4.1 additional hospital beds based on the existing hospital - beds -per -district population ratio. This would represent an increase in beds within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3. Similarly, the additional population growth considered under the Preferred Alternative would result in increased demand at the nearby Valley Medical Center primary care and urgent care clinics that falls within the range of AIternatives 2 and 3. As with other alternatives, 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. 3.16.1.5 Social Services The Preferred Alternative would include major public investments that would create redevelopment opportunities and possibly expand upon or enhance social services within the Planned Action Study Area, similar to Alternative 3. Among the key components of the Preferred Alternative outside of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea is development of a family village in the North Subarea. The benefits and impacts on social services of development of the family village concept under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those described under Alternative 3 of the Draft EIS. In addition, similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, improvements to streetscapes, including sidewalks, nonmotorized facilities, and transit shelters in the Planned Action Study Area, would provide similar long-term benefits and temporary disruptions to accessibility of social services as those of Alternatives 2 and 3. The population increase anticipated within the Planned Action Study Area under the Preferred Alternative falls within the range of the alternatives considered in the Draft EIS, and the expanded or enhanced social services in this Planned Action Study Area, described above, would accommodate the higher demand. 3.16.1.6 Solid Waste The Preferred Alternative provides for an amount of redevelopment and civic investment falling within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3, resulting in levels of construction -related waste generation falling within the range of those alternatives. Solid waste generation under the Preferred Alternative would increase by around 129,689 pounds of waste per week compared with existing conditions, approximately 9,300 fewer pounds per week than Alternative 3. As with other alternatives, a percentage of the waste would be diverted to recycling. 3.16.1.7 Public Library Relocation of the Highlands Library would have a similar temporary impact in library services as the other alternatives. Growth anticipated under the Preferred Alternative would create a demand for an additional 1,940 square feet of library space compared with existing conditions. This is slightly less than the demand for library space under Alternative 3. Similar to Alternative 3, it is anticipated Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-59 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3_ Environmental Review of preferred Alternative that the planned improvements to the Renton Highlands Library, in combination with the planned new Newcastle Library located north of the Planned Action Study Area, would account for the Preferred Alternative level of growth considered in this King County Library System geographic cluster. 3.16.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 3.16.2.1 Police Construction impacts and indirect impacts on police response time for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would be the same as for the Planned Action Study Area as a whole. Under the Preferred Alternative, population in the subarea would grow by approximately 614 compared with existing conditions. Applying the Renton Police Department standard to this population increase would account for 1.0 of the approximately 8.6 additional police officers described under the Planned Action Study Area, above, falling within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. 3.16.2.2 Fire and Emergency Medical Services Construction impacts and indirect impacts on response time for this subarea would be the same as for the Planned Action Study Area as a whole. The subarea's proximity to Fire Station 12 makes response time unlikely to be adversely affected in this portion of the Planned Action Study Area. Applying the fire service's staffing ratio to the Preferred Alternative's population growth in the subarea would account for 0.14 of the 1.2 firefighter full-time equivalent positions needed in the overall Planned Action Study Area, falling within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. 3.16,2.3 Education The 2011 opening of Honey Dew Elementary could change where elementary students living in this subarea attend- elementary school, similar to all other alternatives. The Preferred Alternative would have a similar temporary construction impact as that of Alternative 3 on accessibility to the Early Childhood Program for subarea children in that program. Population growth in the subarea under the Preferred Alternative would result in increases in student population in the subarea and demand on the Renton School District's English Language Learners Program within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. Approximately 60 additional students would be located in the subarea compared with existing conditions. Capital improvements described in the Planned Action Study Area, above, would provide the additional student capacity to accommodate these additional students. 3.16.2.4 Health Care Under the Preferred Alternative, the increase in subarea population would result an increase in hospital bed demand and demand for service at the nearby Valley Medical Center primary care and urgent care clinics that falls within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. Demand for hospital beds in the subarea would increase by 0.5 bed over existing conditions, a less -than -significant impact on health care service. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-60 April 2011 Final NEPA/SERA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton 3.16.2.5 Social Services Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, redevelopment of the subarea would displace the existing on-site community meeting space that is currently used for on-site social service programs. However, as with those other alternatives, the space would be replaced onsite or nearby with a larger and more modern facility, and phasing of development as described in Chapter 2 could minimize or avoid disruption to on-site social service programs. Redevelopment plans for the subarea, under the Preferred Alternative, include the relocated and expanded Highlands Library, a senior day health center, and some additional community service/retail space, some of which could be devoted to community or social services. Space could be used for social services or other facilities providing meeting/gathering space. Overall, the amount of space devoted to community or social services within the subarea would fall within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2, but additional community space anticipated in Alternative 3, such as the family village, would be located outside but nearby the subarea. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, the residents of the subarea would benefit from infrastructure improvements that would make walking and transit use more viable and increase residents' access to social services located outside the subarea. The Preferred Alternative would result in increased demand for social services that falls within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. 3.16.2.6 Solid Waste The redevelopment of the subarea anticipated under the Preferred Alternative would generate a similar amount of construction -related waste as Alternatives 2 and 3, under which the entire subarea would be redeveloped. Solid waste generation under the Preferred Alternative would increase by around 14,750 pounds per week, falling within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. As with other alternatives, a percentage of this waste would be diverted to recycling. 3.16.2.7 Public Library Space for library services is available in the proposed Preferred Alternative conceptual plan for the subarea (Figure 2-11). Growth in population in the subarea would account for approximately 221 square feet of additional library facility space compared with existing conditions, falling within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, the King County Library System's plans to increase the size of the Renton Highlands Library by approximately 8,408 square feet would accommodate this level of population increase. 3.16.3 Mitigation Measures There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative. 3.17 Utilities Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 61 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3_ Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative 3.17.1 Planned Action Study Area The Preferred Alternative shows a similar amount of growth in the Planned Action Study Area to Alternative 3. Anticipated growth would result in an increase in residential population of 5,404 persons (181% over existing population) and in employment population of 3,154 persons by 2030. 3.17.1.1 Water With the growth projected for the Preferred Alternative, the increase in the average daily demand (ADD) is projected to be 0.56 million gallons per day (267% over existing ADD), and the peak daily demand (PDD) is projected to increase by 1.07 million gallons per day (267% over existing PDD). The existing booster pump stations that supply the Highlands 435 and Highlands 565 pressure zones, in which the Planned Action Study Area is located, have sufficient supply capacity to meet the projected growth in demand. The primary impact of subarea redevelopment on the water distribution system is increased fire -flow requirements. Water system pressure in some areas within the Planned Action Study Area may not be adequate for multistory development and/or for development with fire sprinkler systems, unless new water mains are extended from the higher - pressure Highlands 565 pressure zone. As noted for the other alternatives in the Draft EIS, the growth projected for the Preferred Alternative would also increase the existing storage deficit in the Highlands 435 pressure zone, and the development that is projected for the Planned Action Study Area would increase the fire -flow requirements and associated storage requirements with more multifamily development and commercial development. The mitigation measures summarized in Final EIS Chapter 1 to extend the Highlands 565 pressure zone to meet the fire -flow requirements also apply to the Preferred Alternative. P1 3.17.1.2 Wastewater The increase in wastewater load under the Preferred Alternative for the Planned Action Study Area is 0.59 million gallons per day (170% of existing load). This increase in wastewater load is not expected to affect the wastewater interceptors that provide conveyance of wastewater from the Planned Action Study Area, but the increased wastewater load under the Preferred Alternative could increase surcharging that is currently experienced and observed within the Planned Action Study Area. The mitigation measures summarized in Final EIS Chapter 1 to alleviate the surcharging within the Planned Action Study Area also apply to the Preferred Alternative. 3.17.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The Preferred AIternative shows anticipated growth in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea that is slightly less than Alternative 2. The projected growth would result in an increase in residential population of 614 persons (277% of existing) and in employment population of 79 persons. 3.17.2.1 Water The increase in ADD for this subarea would be 0.05 million gallons per day (270% of existing ADD), and the increase in the PDD would be 0.09 million gallons per day (270% of existing PDD). The Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3_62 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative primary significant impact of subarea development on the water distribution system would be related increased fire -flow requirements. These increased fire -flow requirements are substantial and cannot be met by the existing distribution system serving the subarea. Water system pressure provided by the 435 pressure zone within the subarea is not adequate for multistory development and/or for development with fire sprinkler systems. New water mains extended from the higher - pressure 565 pressure zone system to service the subarea would need to be phased to accommodate the Preferred Alternative. The mitigation measures summarized in Final EIS Chapter 1 to meet the fire -flow requirements also apply to the Preferred Alternative. A more detailed discussion of needed water system improvements and possible phasing of those improvements are provided in Section 3.17.3 below. 3.17.2.2 Wastewater Under the Preferred Alternative, the increase in wastewater load in this subarea is 0.05 million gallons per day (256% of existing load). Similar to the Planned Action Study Area, no impacts on the interceptors that provide conveyance from this subarea are expected, but the increased sewer load could impact local sewers within this subarea. The mitigation measures summarized in Final EIS Chapter 1 to alleviate the surcharging within the Planned Action Study Area as a whole and this subarea in particular also apply to the Preferred Alternative. A more detailed discussion of needed sewer system improvements is provided in Section 3.17.3 below. 3.17.3 Mitigation—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 3.17.3.1 Water Renton fire and building codes mandate minimum fire flows, durations, and pressure prior to occupancy of new structures. In the case of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea these mandated flows dictate substantial upgrades to the water distribution system. When the fire flow required for a new development exceeds 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm), the City also requires that the mains providing that fire flow be looped. Looped water mains provide more reliability and higher pressures under fire -flow conditions. City regulations also require installation of fire hydrants along all arterials such as NE Sunset Boulevard. Taken together these code requirements would lead to a series of new water mains connected to the 565 pressure zone and extended to the various redevelopment projects within the subarea. It is not possible to predict the precise timing and sequencing of these redevelopment projects. The following paragraphs illustrate one scenario of water main sequencing that could meet fire -flow requirements. Edmonds -Glenwood Phase 1 Phase 1 of the Edmonds -Glenwood redevelopment project consists of townhomes along Glenwood Avenue NE. Fire -flow requirements for this project are expected to be in the range of 2,500 gpm. The existing water system in Glenwood Avenue NE cannot provide that amount of fire flow. A new 12 - inch -diameter water main would be required to be extended from Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street in the 565 pressure zone, south along Harrington Avenue NE, and continuing along Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-63 April 2011 Stinal NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative Glenwood Avenue NE past and through the project site, about 800 feet of new pipe (Segment A on Figure 3.17-1). New Library A new library is proposed in the northeast quadrant of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE. If the fire -flow requirements for the new library are about 2,500 gpm or less, then the existing 12 -inch -diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard could meet that requirement. New Mixed -Use Building Adjacent to New Library A new mixed-use community service/retail/residential structure is proposed adjacent to the new library between NE Sunset Boulevard, NE 10th Street, and Sunset Lane NE. It is reasonable to expect that the combination of additional structure size and exposure (to the library) would mandate fire flows for this building in excess of 2,500 gpm. In that case, a looped system of mains from the 565 pressure zone would be required. This could be achieved by extending new mains from the existing 12 -inch -diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard northwesterly on both Harrington Avenue NE and NE 10th Street to Sunset Lane NE. The loop could then be connected by installing a new 12 -inch - diameter main in Sunset Lane NE from Harrington Avenue NE to NE 10th Street. The existing water main in Sunset Lane NE could then be abandoned in place. This new loop would be about 700 feet in total length (Segment B on Figure 3.17-1). RHA's Piha Site Fire flows required for the PIHA site development have not been established. If the flow requirement is 2,500 gpm or less, then it could be met by extending a new 12 -inch -diameter main in NE 10th Street past the site to Harrington Avenue NE. The extension could either be from NE Sunset Boulevard (if the project precedes the mixed use development adjacent to the library). Or it could be from Sunset Lane NE, if the project occurs after the mixed use development adjacent to the library. The length of pipe required from Sunset Boulevard would be about 500 feet; from Sunset Lane NE it would be about 350 feet. (Segment C on Figure 3.17-1) It is possible that required fire flows for the PIHA site would exceed 2,500 gpm. In that situation a looped main system would be necessary. There are multiple scenarios to meet the looping requirements. Those fire flow looping scenarios depend largely on the timing and sequencing of the PISA site project; i.e. does it precede or follow other redevelopment projects contemplated for the project area. Under one scenario, if the PIHA site development precedes construction of Phase II and III of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment looping could be achieved by extending another main (in addition to Segment C, discussed above) north on Harrington Avenue NE to Glenwood Avenue NE (Segment H on Figure 3.17-1). If PIHA site development follows Phases Il and III of Sunset Terrace, looping could be achieved by simply connecting the PIHA main extension in NE 10th Street (Segment C) with Segment E at the intersection of Harrington Avenue NE and NE 10th Street. Under another scenario, the PIHA site development could proceed before all other projects. In that case the cost of looping would not be shared with other projects as described in the preceding paragraphs and the PIHA site project would need to install either a "long-term" or a "temporary" 12 - inch -diameter "stand alone" water main loop. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement fi4 ICF 593,10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative The "long-term" alignment would be to extend a 12 -inch -diameter main in Harrington Avenue NE connecting to the existing high-pressure water line in NE Sunset Blvd. This option would result in the installation of a new water main in the section of Harrington Avenue NE that is proposed to be vacated to help create the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Neighborhood Park. The new 12 -inch - diameter water main would be looped around the west and north side of the new PIHA site building and extended southerly in Sunset Lane NE to NE 10th Street, then southeasterly in NE 10th Street to connect back to the existing 12 -inch -diameter line in Sunset Boulevard NE. (Segment P1 on Figure 3.17-1)This new looped water main would be able to deliver about 5,000 gpm. A temporary route (which is not the preferred option) to provide 5,000 gpm to the same site would be to extend two parallel 12 -inch -diameter water lines in NE 10th Street from the existing 12 -inch - diameter line in Sunset Boulevard NE, along with a looped water main around the west and north side of the building, and a 12 -inch -diameter line in Sunset Lane NE connecting back to the second new 12 -inch -diameter main in NE 10th Street. (Segment P2 on Figure 3.17-1) Sunset Terrace Redevelopment It is reasonable to assume that the fire flows required for the Sunset Terrace redevelopment would exceed 2,500 gpm, mandating installation of a looped system. In addition, Sunset Terrace abuts NE Sunset Boulevard, triggering the requirement to install hydrants every 400 feet along that arterial. It may be possible to phase the Sunset Terrace redevelopment in a manner that would allow early elements of the redevelopment to be constructed without looping the water mains (see Edmonds - Glenwood Phase 1, above). In any case, all mains serving the redevelopment would be extended from the S65 pressure zone. Initially, a new water main would be installed in Sunset Lane NE from Harrington Avenue NE to Glenwood Avenue NE (about 750 feet). This presumes that the new main in Harrington Avenue NE discussed in the Mixed -Use Building section, above, has been installed. The existing water main in Sunset Lane NE could be abandoned in place (Segment D on Figure 3.17-1). Looping the system could be achieved by extending the main from the intersection of Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE along the newly aligned NE 10th Street to Harrington Avenue NE (about 250 feet) (Segment E on Figure 3.17-1). This presumes that the water main extension in NE 10th Street to serve RHA's Piha site has already be installed. There are two ways to install the required fire hydrants along NE Sunset Boulevard. One option would he to extend the 12 -inch -diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard from Harrington Avenue NE along the Sunset Terrace frontage (about 800 feet). This would be the most expensive option. Another option would be to extend fire hydrant leads southwesterly through the Sunset Terrace project from Sunset Lane NE to NE Sunset Boulevard at the appropriate intervals (Segments F on Figure 3.17-1). This would be the least expensive option for two reasons: First, the pipes would not be installed in a street avoiding significant restoration costs. Second, the pipes could be smaller because they would be single purpose and not part of the City's transmission/distribution system. Edmonds -Glenwood Phase 2 Fire -flow requirements for the Edmonds -Glenwood Phase 2 project are expected to be about 4,000 gpm, triggering the requirement to loop the water system. There are two options to meet this looping requirement. north or south. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3 65 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative The north option would involve extending the 12 -inch -diameter main from Phase 1 westerly through the site to Edmonds Avenue NE. From there, the main would be extended north in Edmonds Avenue NE to NE 12th Street, then east in NE 12th Street to Harrington Avenue NE, a distance of more than 1,500 feet (Segment G on Figure 3.17-1). The south option would begin in the same manner by extending the Phase 1 main through the project site. Looping would be achieved by installing two new mains. One would extend from Sunset Lane NE north in Glenwood Avenue NE to the Phase 1 pipe. The other would extend northwesterly in easements adjacent to NE Sunset Boulevard and Edmonds Avenue NE from the northern -most fire hydrant lead installed for the Sunset Terrace project through the Phase 2 site. (A more expensive option would be to install this same section of pipe in the rights-of-way of NE Sunset Boulevard and Edmonds Avenue NE.) These loops would also comprise more than 1,500 feet of new pipe (Segment H on Figure 3.17-1). Water Main Costs The cost of installation for new water mains is driven by many factors. Water mains installed in roads are more expensive than water mains installed within project or open space areas, because of the cost savings of avoiding conflicting utilities and restoring the road surface. New water main costs are also affected by whether they are standalone or part of a suite of infrastructure improvements. If the project is only installing a new water main, then all of the excavation, bedding, installation, and other costs are borne by that project. If the project involves installation of the other underground utilities such as sewers or storm sewers, the costs common to the project can be spread across each utility facility being installed. The cost of water mains is also affected by the project sponsor. If the project is being constructed by a private developer, new water mains are less expensive. If the project is sponsored by a government agency, numerous statutes make new water main projects more expensive. The City's recent experience with standalone water main projects in a major arterial indicate costs per foot of about $200 to $250. Applying these costs to the water main improvement described above would indicate costs in the range of $1 to 1.2 million. The improvements would be implemented with City and developer funding. 3.17.3.2 Wastewater Mitigation issues related to wastewater fall into three broad categories: upsizing, rehabilitation, and relocation. Wastewater flows (forecast for the Planned Action Study Area, including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) indicate that some existing sewer pipes must be replaced with larger pipes. One of those pipes is in Harrington Avenue NE. This sewer pipe would be replaced by the City as part of the overall Sunset Terrace redevelopment to accommodate forecast flows. Manholes along the Harrington alignment would be carefully designed and located to avoid interference with the planned park. The collection sewers in Sunset Lane NE are at or near the end of their design life. The condition of these sewers would be assessed to determine if they can be rehabilitated in place or if new pipes would need to be installed. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-66 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 W Q Private Rd ti I � i it • i i• I � I m i ws C ? O CL m� Jc5 NE loth PI NE 1 oth St I :r* ' i Z NE 9th PI NE 9th pl.Aly a - m ! Fernd Cir NE C7 y Fireflow Phase A E 9uilding P1 �8 � F Renton -Parcels P2 0 100 240 300 400 � c tia ue G streets Feet � p H — — Existing Water Pipes Figure 3.17-1 Fire -Flow Phasing—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 3_ Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative The redevelopment concept proposes narrowing and shifting the alignment of Sunset Lane NE. If this action leaves the existing sewers too close to new structures, then the City would require that a new sewer main be installed within the new right-of-way of Sunset Lane NE. 3.15 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources The analysis of "irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources" is the same as that for the Draft EIS. Implementation of the proposals to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community and revitalize the Planned Action Study Area through civic and infrastructure investment and additional private reinvestment would result in, trade-offs between short-term environmental losses and long- term gains. Implementation of the proposals—redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community as part of a broader neighborhood Planned Action, encouraging neighborhood land use growth, public service and infrastructure improvements, and a streamlined environmental review process— would require a commitment of natural, physical, energy, human, and fiscal resources that could be irreversible and irretrievable. The importance of these actions would vary, depending on the scarcity of the resources and their ability to be reclaimed. The proposed commitment of natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources is anticipated to result in benefits. Residents, businesses, and employees of the Planned Action Study Area and Renton residents and businesses would benefit from 1) the replacement of antiquated and dilapidated Sunset Terrace public housing with a new mixed -income, mixed-use development and 2) revitalization of the overall Planned Action Study Area through civic and infrastructure investments and growth. In addition, the proposals would include measures that would meet sustainability goals [e.g., mixed-use development that reduces GHG emissions, green infrastructure that improves stormwater quality, and transportation improvements that promote active and healthy lifestyles). 3.19 Local Short -Term Uses of Environment and Long -Term Productivity The analysis of "local short-term uses of environment and long-term productivity" is the same as that for the Draft EIS. Short-term environmental consequences include construction impacts of new housing, commercial, and mixed-use development, and infrastructure improvements such as roadway, drainage, water, sewer, and other facilities. Short-term construction effects would include temporary displacement and relocation of residents and businesses; generation of noise, dust, and erosion; and potential traffic rerouting. However, mitigation measures would be incorporated into the design and approvals to minimize these potential impacts. Long-term benefits include a more cohesive pattern of residential and commercial redevelopment and neighborhood revitalization that would replace antiquated and dilapidated housing, provide opportunities for healthy active lifestyles, and increase local employment. Stormwater master Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-68 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3, Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative planning would achieve net improvements in stormwater treatment. NE Sunset Boulevard would be revised with access management and aesthetic appeal. Mixed-use development would result in a reduction in energy use and GHG emissions at a regional level. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3 69 ICF 593.x0 Chapter Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS This chapter includes Draft EIS clarifications or corrections based on responses to the comments presented in Chapter 5 of this Final EIS or based on City or consultant review of the Draft EIS information. The clarifications or corrections are organized in the same order as the Draft EIS sections and by page numbers. The sources of the clarifications or corrections are noted for each amendment. The clarifications or corrections do not change the relative impacts of the Draft EIS alternatives or the overall Draft EIS conclusions. 4.1 Fact Sheet and Other Front Matter Consultant clarifications on required approvals in Fact Sheet: Page FS -3, Required Approvals, correct agency name for air quality and construction permits: Puget Sound lean Air Agency • Asbestos surveys Demolition permits 4.2 Draft EIS Chapter 1 Where appropriate, changes made to other chapters or subsections identified below are made in track changes in Chapter 1. 4.3 Draft EIS Chapter 2 Where appropriate, changes made to other chapters or subsections identified below are made in track changes in Chapter 2. 4.4 Draft EIS Chapters 3 and 4 Corrections and clarifications are noted in each subsection below. 4.4.1 Earth No clarifications or corrections are included. 4.4.2 Air Quality No clarifications or corrections are included. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4 ICF 593.10 City of Renton 4.4.3 Water Resources No clarifications or corrections are included. 4.4.4 Plants and Animals Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS In response to comments made by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division (Chapter 5, Letter 12), the following clarifications and corrections are made regarding Johns Creek. Section 3.4.1.1, Planned Action Study Area, page 3.4-2, replace Figure 3.4-1 to show fish presence at the mouth of Johns Creek. See revised Figure 3.4-1 at the end of this chapter. Section 3.4.1.1, Planned Action Study Area, page 3.4-3, amend the first and second paragraphs as follows: Aquatic habitat in the analysis area was reviewed with reference to aerial photographs, zoning maps, the National Wetlands Inventory maps maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2010), "Best Available Science" reviews prepared during the 2003-2004 revision of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance, StreamNet (2010) and Salmonscape (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2010b) database query results, the Final Adopted May Creek Basin Action Plan (King County and City of Renton 2001), and further information on fish distribution (Tabor et al. 2006. No aquatic habitat has been identified within the Planned Action Study Area, but aquatic habitat does occur in the form of streams in Johns Creek. Honey Creek and May Creek, which receive stormwater from paFtians of Planned Action Study Area. No wetlands are mapped anywhere in the Planned Action Study Area, or in the vicinity of Johns Creek, Honey Creek or May Creek downstream of the study area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). Honey Creek (also called Honey Dew Creek) originates within the Renton city limits just north- east of the Planned Action Study Area, near the junction of NE Sunset Boulevard and Redmond Place NE. The creek flows west-northwest approximately 1.0 mile to its confluence with May Creek, which then flows another 1.8 miles to its mouth at Lake Washington. The City has classified the upper 0.5 mile of Honey Creek as a Class 3 stream, and the lower 0.5 mile as a Class 2 stream. May Creek is also a Class 2 stream for the first 0.25 mile below the confluence, and below that point is a Class 1 stream. All of these stream classes signify a perennial stream; Class 1 and 2 streams are also salmonid -bearing. Johns Creek is not classified as salmonid -bearing. but Tabor et al. (2006) report that approximately the lowermost 800 feet of the stream, which are at grade with Lake Washington, are used by juvenile Chinook salmon that enter the stream from Lake Washington. Four anadromous salmonid species are found in these streams. As noted. Johns Creek is used by juvenile Chinook salmon. May Creek, from Lake Washington to above Honey Creek, provides migration, spawning, and rearing habitat for Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, 0. kisutch, and 0. nerka). From Lake Washington to above Honey Creek, it provides migration habitat for steelhead (0. mykiss). Additionally, the lower 0.32 mile of Honey Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for coho salmon (StreamNet 2010; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2010b). No other sensitive aquatic species have been identified within the analysis area, but it is likely that these waters also contain many common aquatic species such as three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), freshwater sculpins (Cottus Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS sp.), nonnative fishes in the sunfish family (Centrarchidae), and long -toed salamanders (Ambystoma macrodactylum). Section 4.4.1.1, Alternative 1: No Action, Planned Action Study Area, page 4.4-2, amend the first and second paragraphs as follows: Redevelopment actions would be required to comply, during construction, with City regulations requiring temporary erosion and sedimentation controls to prevent water quality impacts from work site stormwater runoff. Following construction, projects in the May and Honey creek watersheds would be required to comply with City regulations requiring all stormwater detention and treatment to be consistent with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County 2009). With this compliance, the projects would match the forested discharge duration for the discharge rates between 50% of the 2 -year peak flow through the 50 - year peak flow and match the 2 -year and 10 -year peak discharge assuming forested site conditions. Lower Johns Creek is at grade with Lake Washington. Stormwater originating from the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and from other portions of the Planned Action _Study Axea within the Johns Creek basin would be conveyed to these waters. Johns Creek west of I-405 is cla. 5ific _as_a_major receiving water body which does not require flow -duration control. The basis J'qi- Cjl 5 determination is in the report. Enhanced Transportation Project Delivery through_WgtUahed Characterization, produced by the Washington State Department of Transportation, Uibaa (corridors Office in collaboration with the Washington State Department of Ecology. WashinVtonn of Fish and Wildlife and the Mucki shoot Tribe Gersib et A 2004. Therefore herelevant e for flow control within the has Creek basin are to maintain the capacity of the existing -9= -drainage system by matching peak flows from the existing land coverage and to construct flow „CQattrol best management practices CBMPs), where feasible. Projects in the Planned Action Study Area would be required to comply with existing stormwater regulations that require "enhanced basic water quality treatment" or "basic water quality treatment," if single family, per the stormwater code. Compliance with these regulations would produce a decline in the area of untreated pollutant -generating impervious surface, resulting in beneficial effects on water quality. These protections are sufficient to ensure that redevelopment actions under AIternative 1 would not cause adverse impacts on fish and their habitat in the Planned Actio,, Study nr nr ;n Waters receiving runoff from the Planned Action Study Area. Section 4.4.1.1, Alternative 1: No Action, Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, pages 4.4-2 and 4.4-3, amend second paragraph of the subsection as follows: Under Alternative 1, there would be no Change in the total area of untreated pollutant - generating surfaces, and the estimated change in effective impervious area would result in an increase of approximately 33% over existing conditions. This represents a functional impairment relative to existing conditions. However, because all runoff from the subarea is conveyed to the Git.• ste -,r.. at s sten aro would be subject to the same regulations described above for the Planned Action Study Area, the runoff increases would have tto-little potential to impact erraquatic habitat or sensitive fish species. Section 4.4.1.2, Alternative 2, Planned Action Study Area, page 4.4-3, amend third paragraph of the subsection as follows: Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4-3 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS Redevelopment actions would be required to comply, during construction, with City regulations requiring temporary erosion and sedimentation controls to prevent water quality impacts from work site stormwater runoff. Following construction, projects in the May and Honey creek watersheds would be required to comply with City regulations requiring all stormwater detention and treatment to be consistent with the 2009 King County stormwater manual. With this compliance, the projects would match the forested discharge duration for the discharge rates between 50% of the 2 -year peak flow through the 50 -year peak flow and match the 2 -year and 10 -year peak discharge assuming forested site conditions. A§ dttailed in the Alternative 1 analysis, Johns Creek is a flow -control -exempt water body. Within the, JQ;bns Creek basin, redevelopment actions must maintain the capacity of the existing storm drainage system by machin,g peak flows from the existing land coverage and constructing flow control BMFs where feasible. Construction in the Johns Creek basin would be consistent with the 2009 King County Surface_ WaterQgsian Manual (King County 2009). Section 4.4.1.2, Alternative 2, Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, page 4.4-4, amend second paragraph of subsection as follows: All runoff from the subarea is conveyed to the City star- ,.•.aterz systemJohns Creek and is subject to existing regulation as described above. All but 0.13 acre of the pollutant -generating impervious surfaces in the subarea would be treated, representing a substantial improvement compared to existing conditions, under which the subarea has 1.88 acres of untreated pollutant - generating impervious surfaces. Thus, there would be ne-miaimal impact on aquatic habitat or sensitive fish species. Section 4.4.1.3, Alternative 3, Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, page 4.4-5, second paragraph of subsection as follows: As under Alternative 2, runoff from the subarea is conveyed to ohn Creek and is subject to existing regulation. All but 0.6 acre of pollutant -generating impervious surfaces in the subarea would be treated, representing a reduction of 1.83 acres in untreated pollutant -generating impervious surfaces. Thus, there would be ne-g l angficial impact on aquatic habitat cw-_anSJ sensitive fish species, but the impact would be small „bccause_-the subarea represents a very small fraction of the Johns Creek watershed. 4.4.5 Energy No clarifications or corrections are included. 4.4.6 Noise No clarifications or corrections are included. 4.4.7 Environmental Health In response to comments by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Chapter 5, letter 7) recommending that Dangerous Waste regulations be specifically addressed in Draft EIS Section 4.7, the following clarification is made. Section 4.7.2.1, Planned Action Study Area, Construction Mitigation Measures, amend bullet 2 as follows: Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4 4 ICF593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS Contractors will be required to implement a contingency plan to identify, segregate, and dispose of hazardous waste in full accordance with the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) (WAC 173- 3401 and the Dangerous Waste (WAC 173-303) regulations. 4.4.8 Land Use No clarifications or corrections are included. 4.4.9 Socioeconomics No clarifications or corrections are included. 4.4.10 Housing No clarifications or corrections are included. 4.4.11 Environmental Justice No clarifications or corrections are included. 4.4.12 Aesthetics No clarifications or corrections are included. 4.4,13 Historic/Cultural Based on consultant review, the following clarifications and corrections are made regarding state responsibilities. Section 3.13, page 3.13-6, amend the last two paragraphs of the subsection, regarding the discussion of the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, as follows: Under SEPA, the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) is the specified agency with the technical expertise to consider the effects of a proposed action on cultural resources and to provide formal recommendations to local governments and other state agencies for appropriate treatments or actions. PA 14-P does not r-egulate the the degree to which the alternatives adversely affect districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP is the primary criterion for determining significant impacts under SEPA. Secondary criteria include whether an alternative has the potential to affect districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects listed in or eligible for listing in the Washington Heritage Register (WHR), the state equivalent of the NRHP. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4 5 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS Section 3.13, page 3.13-6, add a discussion of other archaeological resource laws, as follows: Other Archaeological Resource Laws Other state laws h protection of archaeological resources incluthe following: • RCN 27.44, Indian Graves and Records, provides protection for Native AMQrican graves and burial grounds encourages voluntary reporting of said sites when they are discoycl&d. and mandates a penalty for disturbance or desecration of such sites, • —RCW 27.53. Archaeological Sites and Resources, governs therp oteclion and preservation of g1r,haeological sites and resources and establishes DAHP as the administP,rl;j3g, a ncy for these regulations. • R W 36.70A.020 includes a Voal to "IdCotify and encourage the preservation of lands site and structures that have historical. ical significance." Cities plannin under the Washington State Growtht must consider and incorporate this historic preservation goal. • R W 68. 60, Abandoned an Hi5tQEJF, Cemeteriesn Historic Graves, provides for the protection and preservation of abandoned and hi5tQ,tic cemeteries and historic graves In response to comments made by the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (Chapter 5, Letter 2), the following clarification is made to mitigation measures. Section 4.13.2, mitigation measures for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, amend paragraph 2, page 4.13-8 as follows: If human skeletal remains are discovered, immediately. TF ^r if archaeological materials are uncovered during excavation, the proponent will immediately stop work and notify the City, nA1412and -,rr cte Indian vibes -agencies as outlined in the Unanticipated Discovery Plan provided in Draft EI Appendix I and as amended by Final EIS Chapter 4. If the project would disturb an archaeological resource, the City will impose any and all measures to avoid or substantially lessen the impact. If avoidance of the archaeological resource is not possible, an appropriate research design must be developed and implemented with full data recovery of the archaeological resource prior to the development project. The avoidance of archaeological resources through selection of project alternatives and changes in design of project features in the specific area of the affected resource(s) would eliminate the need for measuring or mitigating impacts. 4.4.14 Transportation In response to comments by King County Metro (Chapter 5, Letter 1), the following clarifications about transit routes are made. Section 3.14.1.1, Planned Action Study Area, page 3.14-3, amend Transit Section as follows: Faut:Five King County Metro bus routes serve the Planned Action Study Area. King County Metro provides fixed -route transit service connecting the study area to downtown Renton. Seattle and Bellevue. Table 3.14-2 outlines these routes. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Table 3.14-2. King County Metro Transit Service Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS Route # Route Name Operation Days Operation Times Headway 105 Renton Highlands- Weekday 4:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 30 minutes Downtown Renton Saturday 6:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 30 minutes �$ Renton Highlands- Sunday 7:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 1 hour 111 Downtown Seattle -Lake Weekday 5:20 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. 15 minutes Kathleen Weekday 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 15 minutes 240 Bellevue -Renton Transit Weekday 5:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. 30 minutes Center Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. 30 minutes Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. 1 hour �$ Renton Highlands- Weekday 7:20 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 1 hour Downtown Renton Saturda 7:50_a.m. to 6:30 p.m. 1 hour 909 Renton Highlands- Weekday 5:45 a.m. to 7:15 p.m. 1 hour Downtown Renton Saturday 6:15 a.m. to 6:45 p.m. 1 hour Source: King County 2010. a Headway is defined at the time between successive busses as they pass a common point on the Metro Route 105 is a local route that travels between downtown Renton and Renton Highlands, terminating at Harrington Avenue NE and NE 16th Street. From the north, the route travels along NE 12th Street and NE 10th Street through the study area before heading south on Union Avenue NE to NE 4th Street and downtown Renton. Metro Route 111 provides weekday directional peak -period service between downtown Seattle and the Renton Highlands. In the morning, the route travels through the study area along NE 10th Street, NE Sunset Boulevard, and Kirkland Avenue NE before heading west along NE 16th Street towards Interstate 405 and its final destination in downtown Seattle. In the afternoon, reverse peak -period service comes from Seattle and travels through the study area towards Renton Highlands. Metro Route 240 provides daily service between the Renton Transit Center and the community of Clyde Hill (Bellevue). It is the primary transit route through the study area and immediately sfrves JhQ Potential Sunset Terrance Redevelopment Subarea. Within the study area, the route travels along NE Sunset Boulevard from NE Park Drive to Duvall Avenue NE. At Duvall Avenue NE, the route turns northbound and travels through the Newcastle Transit Center to Bellevue. Metro Routed q.QS and 909 are impart of King County Metro's Dial -a -Ride -Transit (DART) program. The ute 909 provides weekday and Saturday service between Kennydale and downtown Renton, and passes through the study area along Kirkland Avenue NE, NE Sunset Boulevard, and Harrington Avenue NE. Route 908 also provides „scryire on weekdays and Saturdays, bUt t[ayejs_between Maplewood and downtown Renton. This route serves Renton District Court and_Re.nton Technical College, and passes through the study area alone Edmonds Avenue NE. 4.4.15 Parks and Recreation Page 4.15-1, Impacts, fourth paragraph, amend as follows (staff corrections): For recreation facilities LOS, two measures were calculated: 1) with school facilities -and 2) without school facilities. To calculate recreation facilities LOS deficiencies and surplus, the Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2411 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS existing study area population was compared to the City's LOS standards for each facility type (refer to Table 3.15-3 for facility LOS). Table 4.15-2 summarizes the existing and future LOS for recreation facilities (fields, courts, and trails) within the Planned Action Study Area. Figure 4.15- 1 shows the service areas of the park facilities within the Planned Action Study Area. Refer to Appendix G for the park and recreation LOS calculations..Ball field and sport court LOS standards are applied citywide: thus, a lack of such facilities within the Planned Action Study Area or the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea does not indicate an LOS deficiency. Page 4.15-5, Alternative 1: No Action, Planned Action Study Area, Operation, Third Paragraph, revise as follows (staff corrections): As shown in Table 14.5-2, LOS results for future No Action conditions (not including school recreation facilities) indicate that there would be a deficiency in baseball/softball fields, football/soccer fields, and walking/hiking trails within the Planned Action Study Area. If school facilities were considered as a joint use with park facilities, as discussed in Alternatives 2 and 3, the City's current adopted standards for fields and courts would be met, but a deficiency would remain for walking/hiking trails. Ballfield and sport court LOS standards are applied ci ide: thus, a lack of such facilities within the Planned Action Study Area or the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea does not indicate an LOS deficiency. Page 4.15-6, Alternative 2, Planned Action Study Area, Second Paragraph, revise as follows (staff corrections): With the future increase in population (an increase of 3,830 from existing conditions) in the Planned Action Study Area for Alternative 2, an increase in demand for park and recreation facilities is anticipated. Although about 0.89 acre of park 38,500 square feet of community service space are added to the Planned Action Study Area under Alternative 2 (in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea), there would be a deficiency in both neighborhood and community park land under future conditions and the population would continue to be underserved, as shown in Table 4.15-1. Without the addition of new recreation facilities, there would also be a deficiency of fields, courts, and trails within the study area, as shown in Table 4.15-2. Ballfield and sport court LOS standards are applied citywide: thus, a lack of such facilities within the Planned Action Study Area or the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea does not indicate an LOS deficiency. Beyond park acres, ballfields, courts, and trails, there may also be a need for specialized facilities such as gyms, running areas, and meeting rooms. This would be further determined by City parks and recreation plans and site programming. Page 4.15-7, Alternative 3, Planned Action Study Area, Second Paragraph, revise as follows (staff corrections); Under Alternative 3, population in the Planned Action Study Area increases by 5,789 people from existing conditions. With this increase, the demand for parks and recreation facilities would increase more than under Alternative 2. Without additional park acreage, there would be a deficiency in neighborhood and community park acreage in the Planned Action Study Area (Table 4.15-1) and a deficiency in fields, courts, and trails (Table 4.15-2). Ballfield and snort court LOS standards are applied citywide: thus, a lack of such facilities within the Planned Action Studv Area or the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea does not indicate an LOS deficiency. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.8 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS Similar to Alternative 2, there may also be a need for specialized facilities such as gyms, running areas, and meeting rooms. This would be further determined by City parks and recreation plans and site programming. Page 4.15-9, Indirect Impacts, Second Paragraph revise as follows (staff corrections): Facility deficiencies in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would also likely lead to spillover demand for active playfields for team sports in other parts of Renton as well as in surrounding communities.. However. the City treats ballfield capacity as a citywide service and_wouldconsidcr_cUwide demand. 4.4.16 Public Services Page 4.16-7, Alternative 2, Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, Social Services, First Paragraph, amend as follows (staff corrections): The Sunset Terrace redevelopment 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 could be minimized or avoided. Page 4.16-11, Alternative 3, Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, Social Services, First Paragraph, amend as follows (staff corrections): Similar to Alternative 2, redevelopment of this subarea 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 could be minimized or avoided. 4.4.17 Utilities Page 4.17-3, Alternative 2, Planned Action Study Area, Wastewater, amend as follows (staff corrections): Under Alternative 2, the increase in wastewater load for the Planned Action Study Area is 0.7-9-A million gallons per day 0119% of existing load). Similarly, as discussed under AIternative 1, no impacts are expected in the wastewater interceptors that provide conveyance of wastewater from the Planned Action Study Area. However, the increased wastewater load with the growth planned under Alternative 2 could increase current surcharging of the local sewers within the study area. Page 4.17-4, Alternative 2, Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, Wastewater, amend as follows (staff corrections): The increase in wastewater load in this subarea, under Alternative 2, would be 0.4-0-07 million gallons per day (311% of existing load). Similar to the Planned Action Study Area evaluation of wastewater conveyance capacity for Alternative 2, no impacts on the interceptors that provide conveyance from the subarea are expected, but the increased wastewater load could impact local sewers within the subarea and increase current surcharging of the local sewers within the subarea. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4 9 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS Page 4.17-5, Alternative 3, Planned Action Study Area, Wastewater, amend as follows (staff correction): Under Alternative 3, the increase in wastewater load for the Planned Action Study Area is 0.633 million gallons per day (4-9-31 1% of existing load). This increase in wastewater load is not expected to affect the wastewater interceptors that provide conveyance of wastewater from the Planned Action Study Area. Similar to the discussion under Alternatives 1 and 2, the increased wastewater load with the growth planned for Alternative 3 could increase current surcharging of the local sewers within the Planned Action Study Area. 4.4,18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources No clarifications or corrections are included. 4.4.19 Local Short -Term Uses of Environment and Long -Term Productivity No clarifications or corrections are included. 4.5 Draft EIS Chapter 5 No clarifications or corrections are included. 4.6 Draft EIS Chapter 6 No clarifications or corrections are included. 4.7 Draft EIS Chapter 7 No clarifications or corrections are included. 4.8 Draft EIS Chapter 8 In response to comments made by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division, Chapter 5, Letter 12 the following clarifications and corrections are made: Section 8.1.5, add the following reference: Tabor, R. A., H_ A. Gearns, C. M. McCoy II1, and S. Camacho. 2006. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin. Lacey, WA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Section 8.1.23, add the following reference: Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4-10 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS Gersh, R., B. Haddaway, T. Hilliard, E. Molash, J. Park, A. Perez. R. Schanz, and V. Stone. 2004. Enhancing Transportation Project Delivcr through hrough Watershed Characterization, 1-405 Case Study. Seattle, WA; WSDOT Urban Corridors Office. 4.9 Draft EIS Appendices Based on consultant review, the following clarifications and corrections are made to Appendix J regarding state responsibilities. Appendix J, page 1-7, amend the last two paragraphs of the subsection, regarding the discussion of the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, as follows: Linder SEPA, the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) is the specified agency with the technical expertise to consider the effects of a proposed action on cultural resources and to provide formal recommendations to local governments and other state agencies for appropriate treatments or actions. n A 14P dekes not regulate the to uphold the DA14P r-eeen4wend-ation-s and may FequiFe mitigation effeets; -An significant cultural FeSOUr-CeS. FEW the ,-..,,.,-,, Ses nFt'"'s degree to which the alternatives adversely affect districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP is the primary criterion for determining significant impacts under SEPA. Secondary criteria include whether an alternative has the potential to affect districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects listed in or eligible for listing in the Washington Heritage Register (WHR), the state equivalent of the NRHP. Appendix J, page 1-7, add a discussion of other archaeological resource laws, as follows: Other Archaeological Resource Laws Other state laws that govern the protection of archaeological resources include: • RCW 27,44. Indian Graves and Records, prQvi,P,,,,, ..lion for Native American graves and burial grounds, encourages v 1 n rvpQ1:tiag uLsaid,siteswhen they are discovered and mandates a penalty for disturbance or desecration ofuch sites, ._. RCW 27.553.Archaeological Sites and Resources, governs the protection and preservation of archaeolQgiral 5itC5 and resources and establishes DAHP as the administering agency for these regulations. • RCW 36.70A.020 includes a goal to "Identify and encourage the prreset;y„arlQ,n of lands. sites, and structures that have historical, cultural, and archaeological sign jficanCV,," Citie..s planning under the Washington State Growth Management Act must consider and incorporate this historic preservation goal. • RCW 68.60. Abandoned and Historic Cemeteries, and ,His,Lntirira___ ves. provides for the protection and preservation of abandoned and historic cemeteries and historic graves. In response to comments made by Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (Chapter 5, Letter 2), the following clarifications are made to mitigation measures. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement 4 1l ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4_ Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS Appendix J, amend recommendations, page 7-1 regarding inadvertent discovery procedures as follows: If human skeletal remains are discovered, the King County Sh, Fi ff an -' ^nun sh..,.la be natiF;ed immediate'Y. Ifor if during exGa ation archaeological materials are uncovered in excavationthe proponent shall immediately stop work and notify the Gity, nn HP, and affeete ind=nrn�sagencies as outlined in the Unanticipated Discovery Plan provided in Appendix C and as amended by Final EIS Chapter. Appendix J, amend inadvertent discovery procedures C and D as follows: C. If skeletal remains are discovered, the City of Renton will immediately call the King County Sheriff's office. the King County Coroner. and a cultural resource specialist or consultant qualified to identify human skeletal remains. The county coroner will dCtermine if the remains are forensic or non -forensic fwhether related to a criminal investie-ationl. The remains should be protected in place until this has been determined. €i+W-. D. If the human skeletal remains are determined to be non -forensic. the King,t;14.Unty Coroner will notify DAHP. who will take jurisdiction over the remains. The State hvsical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Native AMCr;i ran or Non -[Native American. DAHP will handle all consultation with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe as_to_the treatment of the remains.' the human ;IcAptal r e-leter- Mined to be Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4-12 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 Chapter 5 Responses to Comments 5.1 Overview This chapter of the Final EIS contains responses to in-person and written comments on the Draft EIS provided during the comment period. The comment period for the Draft EIS extended from December 17, 2010, through January 31, 2011. 5.2 Public Comments Twelve public comment letters, as well as in-person comments at the Menton Planning Commission's January 5, 2011, meeting, were received during the comment period. These letters and public hearing minutes are listed in Table 5-1. Table 5-2 provides a response to the comments from each letter. Table 5-1. Sunset Area Community planned Action Draft EIS Comment Letters Letter Number Date of Comment Author: Resident, Property Owner, or Agency [Mame 1 December 29, 2010 King County Metro Transit, Gary Kriedt 2 December 30, 2010 Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Gretchen Kaehler 3 January 4, 2011 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region K, PHRS- Facilities Management, Ryan Mielcarek 4 January 5, 2011 Renton Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes 5 January 5, 2011 Lori McFarland 6 January 5, 2011 Housing Development Consortium- King County, Karen Williams 7 January 25, 2011 Washington State Department of Ecology, Alice Kelly 8 January 27, 2011 Linda Perrine 9 January 27, 2011 U.S. Department of the Interior, Allison O'Brien 10 January 30, 2011 Kathleen Ossenkop 11 January 31, 2011 Myrne Larsen 12 January 31, 2011 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division, Karen Walter 13 January 31, 2011 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Christine B. Reichgott 5.3 Responses to Comments The responses Iisted in Table 5-2 are numbered to correspond to the numbers shown in the left margin of the comment letters and public hearing minutes that follow after Table 5-2. Comments that state an opinion or preference are acknowledged with a response that indicates that the comment is noted; these comments will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers as part of the Final ITIS. Comments that ask questions, request clarifications, propose corrections, or are Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5-i ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 5. Responses to Comments related to the Draft EIS are provided a response that explains the approach, offers corrections, or provides other appropriate information. Table 5-2. Responses to Comments Comment Number Response Letter 1: Gary Kriedt, King County Metro Transit 1-1 Transit Service: Draft EIS Section 3.14 describes current transit service, but does not address Route 908 referenced in the comment. A description of Route 908 has been added to the Final EIS as a clarification/correction. Please see Final EIS Chapter 4. 1-2 Bus Stop Improvement Request: Draft EIS Section 4.14 indicates under Alternatives 2 and 3 that "[a]ll bus stops within the Planned Action Study Area will be upgraded to meet ADA accessibility requirements." This feature is part of the Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS as well. Letter 2: Gretchen Kaehler, Washington State', Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 2-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Remains—Authorities to Contact: An edit has been made to the cultural resources report to clarify that both local law enforcement and the King County Coroner must be notified if remains are found. 2-2 Non -Forensic Remains--DAHP Jurisdiction: An edit has been made to the cultural resources report to clarify that DHAP will take jurisdiction over non -forensic remains. Letter 3: Ryan Mielcarek, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Region X, PHRS- Facilities Management 3-1 Concerning the Opening of Windows: Based on a review of the referenced HUD Noise Guidebook, the Final EIS noise analysis (Section 3.6) provides some follow-up analysis of standard construction materials that supports a performance standard to reduce interior noise levels to achieve the HUD standard of 45 dBA. Final EIS Appendix F documents the criteria are met with regard to "resident choice" as referenced in the comment. 3-2 Concerning the Space Between Sunset Road and the Multifamily Structures: Building layouts and location of exterior gathering spaces in relation to NE Sunset Boulevard were considered in the development of the Preferred Alternative. The building setbacks are increased along NE Sunset Boulevard compared to the Draft EIS concepts, and buildings ring a central park protecting it from traffic noise emanating from NE Sunset Boulevard. The plaza near the library is placed to the north of the building rather than along the state route. See Final EIS Chapter 2 for a description of the Preferred Alternative. 3-3 Other Thoughts: The suggestion for nonmotorized connections throughout the Sunset Terrace streetscape was considered in the development of the Preferred Alternative, see Final EIS Chapter 2. The topography and space between buildings 9 and 10 allow for a mid -block connection. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5-z ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 5. Responses to Comments Comment Number Response Letter 4: Renton Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes 4-1 Linda Perinne, Property Owner, Jobs Clarification and Stormwater Improvements: The Draft EIS identifies new permanent jobs, not relating to the construction or development of the project. Regarding stormwater, when new buildings are built, the developer needs to comply with the necessary improvements. 4-2 Howard McComber, Highlands Community Association President, Greenway Drainage and Additional Right -of -Way, Avoid Eminent Domain: Draft EIS Alternatives 2 and 3 include rain gardens or swales that are in the right-of-way, requiring an 8 -foot planting strip, where a low impact development (LID) style stormwater vault can be installed. In many cases, the rights-of-way are very large. Some areas along NE Sunset Blvd could need additional right-of-way; however, fair -market value will be negotiated with the property owner if right-of-way is needed. The Preferred Alternative has a reduced need for right-of-way east of NE 10th Street, because the right-of-way width generally accommodates the Complete Street improvements; it should be noted that some commercial parking areas extend into the right-of-way. West of NE 10th Street, there would be a need for some acquisition, principally from the Sunset Terrace site to accommodate the Complete Streets concept. 4-3 Sandel DeMastus, Highlands Community Association Vice President, Ensure Senior and Disabled are Taken Care Of: The Draft EIS alternatives and the Preferred Alternative include new senior housing and a PACE facility that address elder day health. 4-4 Angie Pretty, Housing Affordability and School District Impacts: The City has been coordinating with the Renton School District throughout this process. The Draft EIS evaluates school impacts in Sections 3.16 and 4.16. The Final EIS evaluates school impacts of the Preferred Alternative in Section 3.16. 4-5 Kathleen Ossenkop, Property Owner, Concern Regarding Addition of SOD Units of Housing and Impacts on Residents: The Draft EIS identifies potential impacts of additional jobs and housing in the Planned Action Study Area and the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and proposes mitigation measures to reduce identified impacts. The Final EIS analyzes these potential impacts with respect to the Preferred Alternative. 4-6 Karen Williams, Housing Development Consortium of King County, Appreciate Plan, Ensure Gentrification Does not Remove Private Affordable Housing: The comments are noted and are being considered by city decision makers. Also see responses to specific comments from Letter 6. 4-7 Lori McFarland, Property Owner, Supports Transportation Improvements, Particularly Alternative 3: The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the Final EIS incorporates many elements of Alternative 3. Please see Final EIS Chapter 2. 4-8 Jim Houghton, Property Owner, Developing a Condominium for Seniors, Renton Should Be Part of ARCH: A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) generally serves King County and east King County. The City is not in the service area of ARCH (Sullivan pers. comm.). The City does participate in the King County Consortium; it operates its own Housing Opportunity Fund and offers multifamily tax incentives (please see Draft EIS Section 3.10.2, Regulatory Context). Sunset Area Community Planned Action 5-3 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 5. Responses to Comments Comment Number Response Letter 5: Lori McFarland 5-1 Preference for Alternative 3 and Interconnection of Signals on NE Sunset Boulevard: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the Final EIS incorporates many elements of Alternative 3. Please see Final EIS Chapter 2. 5-2 In Favor of Incentives for Redevelopment to Prevent Continued Decay: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Draft EIS Alternatives 2 and 3 assume public investment as an incentive to private redevelopment, and this concept has been carried forward in the Preferred Alternative. Please see Final EIS Chapter 2. 5-3 Create Pedestrian Improvements that are Accessible per ADAAG: Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative include pedestrian improvements and are intended to meet accessibility guidelines. Please see Final EIS Chapter 2. 5-4 Favor BAT Lanes: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the Final E[S incorporates many elements of Alternative 3. Please see Final EIS Chapter 2. 5-5 Enjoy Diversity in Renton: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Letter 6: Karen Williams, Housing Development Consortium 6-1 Gentrification and Nan -RHA Affordable Housing: The Draft EIS (Section 4.10.2.1) proposes mitigation measures to address potential loss of affordable housing, including funding programs and a local preference for rental assistance. The same measures apply to the Preferred Alternative, 6-2 Gather Information on Private Market Housing: The City may consider collecting this information when it next updates its Housing Element per the Growth Management Act (the current deadline is December 2014). 6-3 Engage Non -Profit Housing Providers: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision - maker consideration. 6-4 Apply Best Practices in Community Redevelopment Experiences: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. The City code includes zoning or developer incentives. 6-5 Amend Existing Density Incentives—Lesser Acreage Minimum and Scaled Incentives: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. In 2007, the City adopted revised zoning for the Planned Action Study Area substantively amending density and bonuses. At this early stage of implementation and redevelopment, the City could monitor development and adapt regulations as needed. The proposed Planned Action Ordinance includes an evaluation in 5 years from the date of adoption, and housing affordability could be reviewed at that time. Alternatively, the City could review housing affordability at the time of its next housing element update as part of the Comprehensive Plan review cycle, next scheduled in 2014 at the time of this writing. Letter 7: Alice Kelly, Washington State Department of Ecology 7-1 Contaminated Site Records: Draft EIS Section 3.7 discloses available agency records. As a result of the comment, it is recommended that Dangerous Waste regulations be specifically addressed in Draft EIS Section 4.7 mitigation measures (4.7.2.1). Contractors will be required to implement a contingency plan to identify, segregate, and dispose of hazardous waste in full accordance with the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) UAC 173-340) and the Dangerous Waste MAC 173-303) regulations. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5-4 i[F 553.10 City of Renton Chapter 5. Responses to Comments Comment Number Response Letter 8: Linda Perrine 8-1 Concern over Scale and Type of Buildings on Edmonds -Glenwood Site: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Draft EIS Alternatives 1 and 2 propose townhomes facing Glenwood Avenue NE to better match the scale of attached dwellings on Glenwood Avenue NE and propose multifamily dwellings facing Edmonds Avenue NE where larger scale buildings are found. Alternative 3 proposes a single multifamily building. The Preferred Alternative includes the combined townhome/flat concept of Draft EIS Alternatives 1 and 2, providing a development pattern that is more consistent with the neighborhood. 8-2 Zoning Allows Building Bonuses Unreasonable to the Neighborhood: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Please note that the City is implementing zoning that was approved in 2007 after obtaining input from a task force and residents {see Draft EIS page 2-10). Also it should be noted that the alternatives for the Edmonds -Glenwood site do not achieve the full maximums allowed by zoning: o The R-14 zone allows a maximum of 14 to 18 dwelling units per acre with opportunities to increase to 30 dwelling units per acre for public housing. However, Draft EIS Alternatives 1 and 2 and the Preferred Alternative propose 8 townhouse units on 0.65 acre along Glenwood Avenue NE, representing about 12 dwelling units per acre. Similarly, the property to contain 82 flats along Edmonds Avenue NE is zoned Center Village. While this zone allows up to 80 dwelling units per acre, development under Draft EIS Alternatives 1 and 2 and the Preferred Alternative would achieve 48 dwelling units per acre. 8-3 Glenwood Is One -Lane Wide—Not Capable of Handling High Density: The Draft EIS reviews city level of service (LOS) standards in Sections 3.14 and 4.14. City LOS standards would be met under all Draft EIS alternatives with little mitigation. The Preferred Alternative has similar results as shown in Final EIS Section 3.14. Additionally, there are two access points for the combined townhome/flat concept: Edmonds Avenue NE for the primary access to the flats and Glenwood Avenue NE for primary access by townhome residents. Recognizing that dampening traffic is RNA's preference as well as the commenter's, the Preferred Alternative would include site design measures to limit pass-through travel (e.g., traffic calming, parking and access design) 8-4 Inadequate Parking for Current Residents—Parking Will Overflow: The Edmonds -Glenwood proposal will include parking that meets City code standards. 8-5 Kids Play in Street—Concern about Traffic: Please see responses to comment 8-3. Also note that the Preferred Alternative includes a larger park area for the whole neighborhood and proposes pedestrian paths and improvements on surrounding streets. Please see Final EIS Chapter 2. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 5. Responses to Comments Comment Number Response 8-6 Buildings Will Block Sun and Create Shade: As noted in Section 4.12 of the Draft EIS for Alternatives 1 and 2 that propose the development along Edmonds -Glenwood, "...RHA housing facilities...would have the potential to increase shading of adjacent properties to the north, though the effect would be minor due to similarity in height. Shading impacts could be minimized through the application of buffers or upper -story setbacks adjacent to existing development." City design guidelines, at Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3- 1001, require transitional design standards as follows: At least one of the following design elements shall be used to promote a transition to surrounding uses: 1. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and/or so that sunlight reaches adjacent and/or abutting yards; or 2. Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels in accordance with the surrounding planned and existing land use forms; or 3. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or 4. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. 8-7 Parking Area Will Have 24 -Hour Light: City lighting standards require that lights not trespass on other properties through the use of shielding and other techniques. (See RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site.) 8-8 High Density Will Discourage New Renters: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Please see responses to comments 8-2 regarding density, Please also note the planned public investment in terms of infrastructure, mixed -income housing, and services is intended to create a more vital attractive area for housing and jobs. 8-9 Increased Pedestrian Traffic by Strangers: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision - maker consideration. [Vote that pedestrian traffic will be directed towards improved sidewalks and paths in the neighborhood. Well-designed development, according to Book Schneider (2010), means more visibility and ownership of common areas. Encouraging tenants to get to know neighbors could be appropriate, as well. 8-10 Tenant Turnover: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. RHA -managed properties tend to have very little turnover. For ail of the 38 families that moved into Sunset Terrace prior to January 1, 2010, and vacated between 2005 and 2010, the average tenancy is approximately 5.7 years. For the 1,089 RHA tenants across all programs that moved in since 1999 and moved out between 2005 and 2010, the average tenancy is 3.9 years (Gropper pers. comm.) 8-11 Increased Noise: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. It appears that the Edmonds -Glenwood site proposes surface parking south of the property owner's side yard, and is not directly behind the property owner's duplex unlike the existing development that the commenter references. Structural orientation and the use of living landscape will soften noise. Residents will be held to customary standard of not disturbing others. (Gropper pers. comm.) 8-12 Garbage Thrown Over Fence: RHA's existing communities are evidence of its attention to well-managed properties with clean appearance. Tossing trash is a violation of the lease that will result in firm enforcement up to and including eviction. (Gropper pers. comm.) Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5-6 1CF 59310 City of Renton Comment Number Response Chapter S. Responses to Comments B-13 Construction Activity Affecting Ability to Rent: The Draft EIS identifies a number of construction mitigation measures regarding traffic, dust, noise, etc. These mitigation measures are summarized in Draft and Final EIS Chapter 1 (Table 1-2). These will also apply to the Preferred Alternative. 8-14 What Will Final Location of Parking Be? The Preferred Alternative proposes that the Edmonds -Glenwood site be designed more like Alternative 1 or 2 to include parking behind buildings whether from Glenwood Avenue NE or Edmonds Avenue NE. Alternative 3 showed a design with parking facing Glenwood Avenue NE and that is not part of the Preferred Alternative. Please see Final EIS Chapter 2. 8-15 Want to Submit Additional Comments in the Future/Concerned about Planned Action Limiting Future Comments: This EIS discloses environmental impacts of planned future public investment and public and private redevelopment, and the City has provided notice through scoping, the Draft EIS comment period, and public hearings. In order to qualify as a Planned Action under SEPA future proposals will be required to be consistent with EIS assumptions and mitigation measures. The Planned Action Ordinance limits the SEPA review process and amount of future environmental review required, but does not preclude future notice of projects. Based on the Renton Municipal Code, if a land use or construction permit requires public notice, public notice will be issued. RHA proposals for Sunset Terrace redevelopment are reviewed in this EIS, and further NEPA analysis for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would not be required. Regarding other future RHA proposals, the Planned Action does not apply to proposals that are subject to NEPA; activities that meet NEPA review thresholds and must obtain federal permits or funding may require additional NEPA environmental review. However, agencies may also use this EIS to the extent appropriate to address potential impacts of NEPA projects. Letter 9: Allison O'Brien, U.S. Department of Interior 9-1 No Comment: We appreciate the Department's interest in the proposals. Letter 10: Kathleen Ossenkop 10-1 Sunset Area Has Seen Many Businesses in Last 15 Years: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. 10-2 Fire Station and Noise. The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. The fire station provides fire suppression and emergency medical services to benefit the neighborhood use. While the present station was recently built north of NE 12th Street, it is not a new use to the neighborhood and for decades was located south of NE Sunset Boulevard in the Planned Action Study Area. 10-3 Highlands Library Transfer: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. As described in Draft EIS Section 3.16, in early 2010, the City annexed to the King County Library System. The Renton Highlands Branch is located within the Planned Action Study Area at 2902 NE 12th Street. The current facility is approximately 6,592 square feet in size and provides 59 hours of service per week to the community (King County Library System 2010). Further, the Draft EIS discusses that the City and King County Library System propose to relocate the library within the neighborhood and increase its size to 15,000 square feet. 10-4 School Crowding and Busing of Students: Draft EIS Sections 3.16 and 4.16 analyze current and planned education services in terms of growth in the Planned Action Study Area, Renton School District addresses busing services. The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. 10-5 Area Has Revitalized and More Growth Will Affect Neighborhood Livability: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. The increased growth will bring more mixed -income housing and jobs and stimulate spending at area businesses. Future development will be required to meet City parking standards. Sunset Area Community Planned Action S-7 April 2011 Final NLPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 5. Responses to Comments Comment Number Response 10-6 No More Low and Modest Income Residences: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. The Sunset Terrace redevelopment would change the area from a public housing development to a mixed -income development including market - rate housing. It will include housing styles that promote ownership (e.g., townhouses). 10-7 Additional Noise and Traffic Due to Adding 479 Units: The Draft EIS reviews the cumulative increase in noise and traffic due to increases in growth at Sunset Terrace and throughout the neighborhood. Current noise levels exceed HUD standards but not Washington State Department of Transportation standards. The EIS identifies some potential increases in noise due to growth, but also identifies mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts. While there are some potential increases in traffic volumes, also described in the EIS, little mitigation is required because NE Sunset Boulevard and most streets have capacity and would meet City LOS standards. Please see Sections 3.6/4.6 and 3.14/4.14 for noise and transportation analyses, respectively. The Preferred Alternative has similar results, as documented in Final EIS Chapter 3. 10-5 Additional Crime: Based on current ratios of police officers per 1,000 population, with additional growth, additional police officers may be needed as described in Draft EIS Section 4.16. Studies regarding low-income housing and crime tend to show a lack of association. For example, Freedman and Owens (2010) cite: "Low-income housing development, and the associated revitalization of neighborhoods, brings with it significant reductions in violent crime that are measurable at the county level." 10-9 Concern for Lack of Common Language, Increased Density, Needs of Senior Citizens: The Renton School District provides a program titled "English Language Learner Program," which may see more use over time as the neighborhood grows, as documented in Section 4.16 of the Draft EIS. Regarding density, no further changes to zoning are proposed in the neighborhood. Please note that the City is implementing zoning that was approved in 2007 after obtaining input from a task force and residents (see Draft EIS page 2-10). Regarding needs of senior citizens, the Sunset Terrace redevelopment plans include additional senior housing and a PACE facility for the frail elderly. 10-10 Protect the Neighborhood from Developers: Please note that the City is implementing zoning that was approved in 2007 after obtaining input from a task force and residents (see Draft EIS page 2-10). 10-11 Summary of Concerns: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Please see responses to comments 10-1 through 10-10. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2411 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5-8 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Comment Number Response Chapter 5. Responses to Comments Letter 11: Myrne Larsen 11-1 Highlands Library Needs to Be Larger/Have Better Computers: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Please see responses to comment 10-3. 11-2 Highlands Retail Needs New Layout: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision - maker consideration. Based on zoning in place, as commercial areas redevelop the City's setback and parking location and access requirements would result in better defined layouts. 11-3 Harrington Square Shows Demand for More and Better Housing: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. 11-4 Need Dedicated Senior Housing. The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Regarding needs of senior citizens, all studied alternatives include additional senior housing and a PACE facility for the frail elderly. 11-5 Need Corn munity Facilities for Play: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision - maker consideration. Please see Draft EIS Section 4.15 for analysis of parks and recreation needs and additional mitigation. Also please note that the Preferred Alternative proposes to aggregate and expand park facilities north of NE Sunset Boulevard (Final EIS Section 3.15). 11-6 Increase in Mixed Income Units Will Benefit Library and Retail Space: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. 11-7 Enhance Sunset Traffic Corridor: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative propose a Complete Streets concept for NE Sunset Boulevard, with greater strides made with Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative. Letter 12: Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 12-1 Johns Creek and Salmonid Use: Johns Creek issues from a stormwater discharge culvert approximately 800 feet upstream of its mouth at Lake Washington. The stream in that reach is at the grade of Lake Washington and for this reason is not flow control limited. The stream provides rearing habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon, which enter the lower stream from Lake Washington and use it as foraging habitats. Updates and clarifications regarding Johns Creek are included in Final EIS Chapter 4. 1 Tabor, A.A. et al. 2006. Nearshore Habitat Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in Lentic Systems of the Lake Washington Basin. Lacey, WA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 5-9 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 5. Responses to Comments Comment Number Response 12-2 Recommend that Johns Creek Basin Flow Control Duration Standard Be Applied as required for Honey and May Creek Basins: The percentage of impervious area within the Johns Creek Basin prior to 1985 was greater than 40%; therefore, the predeveloped condition to be matched is the existing land cover condition. Furthermore, Johns Creek west of 1-405 is classified as a major receiving water body, which does not require duration flow control. The basis for this determination is in the report Enhanced Transportation Project Delivery Through Watershed Characterization, produced by the Washington State Department of Transportation Urban Corridors Office in collaboration with the Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Muckleshoot Tribe. Therefore, the relevant stormwater requirements for flow control within the Johns Creek Basin are to maintain the capacity of the existing storm drainage system by matching peak flows from the existing land coverage and to construct flow - control best management practices (BMPs), where feasible. Public infrastructure improvements within the Johns Creek Basin will reduce impervious area and provide additional flow control through implementation of flow -control BMPs associated with the Sunset Terrace redevelopment, implementation of green connections projects (i.e., retrofitting existing right-of-way with green stormwater infrastructure), provision of water quality facilities for redevelopment of NE Sunset Boulevard and construction of regional detention/retention facilities. The advance flow control mitigation strategy is to evaluate the total reduction in effective impervious area (which is a reasonable approximation of the net total runoff volume from the study area) that would result from the public infrastructure improvements to offset future redevelopment projects. Future redevelopment projects will be required to comply with the City's peak flow control standard in its stormwater code. However, the requirement to match existing peak discharges would extend to the limits of the Planned Action Study Area (rather than the specific development site), and existing peak discharges would be based on current (2011) conditions not the conditions at the time of construction. Where private property developments would result in a total effective impervious area that exceeds current (2011) existing conditions in the study area, the peak flow control standard would need to be met on site. Private property improvements are required to provide flow -control BMPs where feasible. Although the EIS analysis shows a potential increase to the total impervious surface area within the Planned Action Study Area, the implementation of green stormwater infrastructure through public improvements and incremental installation of flow -control BMPs, as required with redevelopment, will maintain or reduce the total "effective" impervious area, defined as the impervious area directly connected to the downstream system. Therefore, minimal changes to runoff volume are anticipated. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5-10 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter S. Responses to Comments Comment Number Response 12-3 Recommend LID Techniques: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative include implementation of green infrastructure and a drainage master plan. See Final EIS Chapter 2. Additionally, it should be noted that the minimum requirements for private and public property do not differ. All private and public property projects are required to meet the minimum requirements under City stormwater codes. Implementation of green stormwater infrastructure projects will vary by site conditions, largely depending upon geotechnical considerations (i.e., the feasibility to infiltrate stormwater). Draft EIS Figure 3.3-2 summarizes conditions that affect infiltration feasibility. Green stormwater infrastructure will be implemented on individual lots per the flow -control BMPs standard. This standard requires projects to fully disperse or infiltrate roof runoff, where feasible. Where full infiltration or dispersion is not feasible, projects are required to implement flow -control BMPs (including full or limited infiltration, dispersion, rain gardens, permeable pavements, rainwater harvesting, vegetated roofs, reduced impervious surfaces and native growth protection) to target either 10% or 20% of the site area, depending on the size and density of the site. Implementation of individual flow -control BMPs (or green stormwater infrastructure) will vary by site conditions. Public infrastructure projects (e.g., green connections, NE Sunset Boulevard, and Sunset Terrace) included in this Planned Action are planned to achieve an enhanced minimum performance standard for implementing flow -control BMPs, which is double the minimums for private development (BMPs are described in Draft EIS Section 43 and in Final EIS Section 3.4). Letter 13: Christine B. Reichgott, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 13-1 Link Mitigation Goals to a Monitoring Plan or Program: The primary monitoring tool will be the Planned Action Ordinance that is included in draft form in Draft EIS Appendix C and revised form as Final EIS Appendix D. Section 4 of the draft ordinance includes "Monitoring and Review." Also, Exhibit B of that draft ordinance cross references the mitigation measures that public or private development/activities will need to incorporate (Exhibit B now cross references mitigation in Chapter 1 of the Draft EIS). The proposed ordinance incorporates the final mitigation measures directly and gives clear roles and responsibilities about who is to implement the mitigation measure and when; language is more specific with the mitigation language moving from "should" to "shall' The proposed Planned Action Ordinance also includes guidance about measuring sustainability. 13-2 NEPA Analysis is Adequate—Now Can Define a Preferred Alternative: The comment is noted. The Final EIS analyzes a Preferred Alternative. 13-3 Preferred Alternative Should Incorporate to the Maximum Quality Urban Design, Sustainable Urban Development, and Livability Principles. The comment is noted. The Final EIS analyzes a Preferred Alternative, documents compatibility with goals identified in Draft EIS Chapter 2, Section 2.6.3, and identifies urban design requirements per City code, sustainability measures incorporated, and how these support livability principles, 13-4 Recommend Seiected Transportation Features (Largely from Alternative 3): All the listed bulleted items were considered as part of the Preferred Alternative. Please see Final EIS Chapter 2. 13-5 Recommend Mitigation Measures be Carried Forward in Section 1.6: The comment is noted and was forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Based on the Ievel of conceptual planning, some of the measures would be better known at the time of construction plans, and thus the City may continue a "menu" -based approach to encourage a variety of appropriate measures that would be determined feasible at a more detailed stage of planning. Please also see response to Comment 13-1. 13-6 Desired Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures: Please see response to comment 13-5. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 5-11 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 5. Responses to Comments Comment Number Response 13-7 Other Sustainability Measures: Diesel Emissions. Three mitigation measures are included in the Draft and Final EIS that would reduce diesel emissions during construction: • Maintain the engines of construction equipment according to manufacturers' specifications. • Minimize idling of equipment while the equipment is not in use. • If there is heavy traffic during some periods of the day, scheduling haul traffic during off-peak times (e.g., between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.) would have the least effect on traffic and would minimize indirect increases in traffic -related emissions. Model Contract Specifications suggested by EPA to reduce diesel emissions are a feasible measure and not cost -prohibitive, but they may only reduce the cumulative risk slightly as follows: • Feasibility: For diesel particulate cancer risks, EPA's website shows that other public works projects have implemented requirements for construction contractors to either retrofit their equipment with control devices to reduce diesel particular matter emissions, or to use brand-new equipment that achieves the same goal. The control devices are commercially available, and the costs for the retrofits would presumably be passed to the property owner (e.g., RHA) as part of the bid price. The additional cost would likely be only a few percent of the overall construction bids. Note that EPA's website does not include any examples from the West Coast and investigation with other agencies (e.g., Washington State Department of Transportation) may be appropriate. • Based on the information in Draft EIS Section 3.2.1, an estimate of the diesel cancer impacts shows: o Action alternatives (project -only) diesel cancer risk: 2 per million o Mitigated action alternatives (project -only) risk: 1 per million o Background/No Action diesel cancer risk (NATA data): 470 per million o Action alternatives cumulative diesel impact without mitigation: 472 per million o Action alternatives cumulative risk with added mitigation: 471 per million In summary, the suggested mitigation measure would be feasible and not cost - prohibitive, but it would reduce the cumulative risk only slightly. Should the phases of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea occur concurrently rather than in a phased and sequential manner, the City and RHA will consider adding the Northeast Diesel Collaborative Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects - Model Contract Specifications as additional mitigation. Midblock Connections: As part of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative, mid -block pedestrian connections are considered (see Final EIS Chapter 2; topography and space between Sunset Terrace conceptual plan buildings 9 and 10 allow for a mid -block connection). Also, Final EIS Figure 2-18 (same as Draft EIS Figure 2-14) provides a map of potential pedestrian connection opportunities for the broader study area. Transportation Management District: The City does not foresee a need for a transportation management district in the study area; however the Planned Action Ordinance allows for monitoring implementation and this could be considered in the future. Community Gardens: The Sunset Terrace public housing redevelopment creates opportunities for parks and open space activities, which could include community gardens. At the time of more specific site designs, the City and RHA could consider identifying some portion of the central park identified in the Preferred Alternative as a community garden. Final EIS Figure 2-11 includes the following note on the Preferred Alternative concept diagram for Sunset Terrace: "The central open space will be designed and programmed at a later date. Considerations would include active and passive recreation, community gardens, and community gathering areas." Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5-12 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 5. Responses to Comments Comment Number Response 13-8 Recommend a Systematic Analytical Process to Determine Maximum Combination of Implementable Sustainability Features: The comment is noted. A checklist of how the Preferred Alternative addresses the proposal goals and objectives is provided as Final 1315 Appendix A. 13-9 Monitoring: The comment is noted. Please see response to comment 10-1. 13-10 Quantitative Mitigation Measures, Adaptive Management: The comment is noted. Please see response to comment 10-1. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5 13 ICF 593.10 D From: Erika Conkling To: Grueter, Lisa; "Roger Mason"; Subject: FW: KC Metro Transit Comments on Sunset Area Planned Action/ EIS, LUA 10-052 Date: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:35:31. PM Erika Conkling, AICP Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econkling@rentonwa.gov From: Kriedt, Gary [mailto: Gary. Kriedt@kingcounty.gov] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 4:18 PM To: Erika Conkling Cc: Hahn, LG; Johnson, Doug Subject: KC Metro Transit Comments on Sunset Area Planned Action/EIS, LUA 10- 052 Hi Erika -- King County Metro Transit staff reviewed the Sunset Area Planned Action/EIS (LUA 10-052) and we have the following comments. Transit Service in the Area: The project area is served by two all -day Metro bus routes (105 & 240), a peak direction commuter route operating to/from downtown Seattle (111), and two local van routes (908 & 909). With these five routes the area is fairly well served by transit. Route 240 is the primary transit service through the general area and it serves the immediate Sunset Terrace redevelopment area. It operates along NE Sunset Blvd between Renton and Bellevue every 30 minutes Monday -Saturday and hourly on Sunday. The 240 was designated as a core service in the Six -Year Development Plan, with targeted frequency improvements of 15 minutes in the weekday peak and 30 minutes on Sunday (neither have yet been implemented due to the on-going Metro budget shortfall). Route 909 operates along Harrington Ave NE and NE Sunset Blvd - east of Harrington. The primary bus zones serving Sunset Terrace are located eastbound on NE Sunset Blvd. farside of Harrington Ave. NE (240, 909), westbound on Sunset farside of Harrington (240) and southbound on Harrington farside of Sunset 1 cont. ' (909). Bus Stop Improvement Request: Metro requests that improvements be made to a bus stop on Harrington Ave. NE 2 just north of NE 7th St. heading north (bus stop number 46558). That bus stop is currently substandard and could use a 10 ft. X 4 ft. ADA landing area at the back of the sidewalk. Please contact LG Hahn, Transit Planner, at 206-684-1725, Ick. Kahn @kin-c�y.go, to discuss. Thank you! Gary Kriedt, Senior Environmental Planner Metro Transit 201 South Jackson St., MS KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 (206) 684-1166 fax: (206)-684-1900 gaaryArfedt cr kingcounty.aov 2 From: Erika Conkling To: Grueter, Lisa; "Roger Mason"; Subject: FW: Sunsent Area Community Planned Action DEIS Comments LUA#10-052 Date: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:38:16 PM Attachments: Sunset Area Community DEIS Comments.pdf Erika Conkling, AICP Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econkling@rentonwa.gov From: Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP)[mailto:Gretchen.Kaehler@DAHP.wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:35 PM To: Erika Conkling Subject: Re: Sunsent Area Community Planned Action DEIS Comments LUA#10- 052 Ms. Conkling, Please see attached comments. Thank you, Gretchen Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archaeologist, Local Governments Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Ph:360-586-3088 Cell:360-628-2755 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 9053 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 • Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address: PO Box 48343 - Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (350) 586-3065 • Fax Number (360) 586-3067 • Website: www.dahp.wa.gov December 30, 2010 Ms. Ericka Conkling City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 091010-3 1 -HUD-CDBG Property: Sunset Terrace Area Community Planned Action EIS Re. Archaeology -Revision of Inadvertent Discovery Procedures Required Dear Ms. Conkling: Thank you for contacting the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). The above referenced project has been reviewed on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer. We concur that no further archaeological work is necessary. However, the inadvertent discovery procedures presented in Appendix J do not comply with state laws and procedures for the inadvertent discovery of human remains (see attached). • C. PIease revise to read that local law enforcement and the King County Coroner must be notified as expeditiously as possible. The county coroner determines if the remains are forensic or non -forensic. If they are determined non -forensic, the King County Coroner will contact the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). • D. Please revise to read that if the human remains are determined to be non -forensic (not related to a criminal investigation) then the DAHP will take jurisdiction over those remains. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Indian or Non - Indian. DAHP will handle all consultation with the affected Tribes and parties as to the treatment of the remains. The above revisions should be reflected in the final EIS. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions (360) 586-3088 grctchen. kachlerAdahp.wa.gov Sincerely, Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archaeologist, Local Governments PARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY L HISTO Protect the Post. Shape the Future a Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery of Human Skeletal Remains or Cultural Resources during Redevelopment of the Edmonds - Glenwood Lot, Harrington Lot, and Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex in Renton, Washington Any human skeletal remains that are discovered during this project will be treated with dignity and respect A. If any City of Renton employee or any of the contractors or subcontractors believes that he or she has made an unanticipated discovery of human skeletal remains or cultural resources, all work adjacent to the discovery shall cease. The area of work stoppage will be adequate to provide for the security, protection, and integrity of the human skeletal remains, in accordance with Washington State Law. The City of Renton project manager will be contacted. B. The City of Renton project manager or the City of Renton representative will be responsible for taking appropriate steps to protect the discovery. At a minimum, the immediate area will be secured to a distance of thirty (30) feet from the discovery. Vehicles, equipment, and unauthorized personnel will not be permitted to traverse the discovery site. C. If skeletal remains are discovered, the City of Renton will immediately call the King County Sheriffs office and a cultural resource specialist or consultant qualified to identify human skeletal remains. The Sheriffs office may arrange for a representative of the county coroner's office to examine the discovery. The remains should be protected in place until the cultural resource specialist has examined the find, D. If the human skeletal remains are determined to be Native American, the City of Renton will notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribes. F. If cultural resources are uncovered, such as stone tools or flakes, fire -cracked rocks from a hearth feature, butchered animal bones, or historic -era objects (e.g., patent medicine bottles, milk tins, clay pipes, building foundations), the City of Renton will arrange for a qualified professional archaeologist to evaluate the find. Again, the cultural resources will be protected in place until the archaeologist has examined the find. F. if the cultural resources find is determined to be significant, the City of Renton cultural resource specialist/archaeologist or consulting archaeologist will immediately contact the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribes to seek consultation regarding the eligibility of any further discovery for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Patential Sunset Terrace C-1 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard ICF 00593,10 From: Mielcarek, Ryan E To: Grueter, Lisa; SEA Washington Skate PHAs. mrg; "Erika Conkling"; "Mark Santps Jphnson"s Wilder. aim Wall Richard B Tennison, Carmen; Zinck, Dean; Stewart, Harlan; Heston. Alrred; Hudgeons, Jeremy: Jensen, Sara; Peavlerstewart, Detorah;_ Subject: Sunset Terrace Noise Mitigation Date: Tuesday, January 04, 20114:26:05 PM Attachments: image001.pno Fig2-10.pdF Sunset Terrace DEIS Noise Mitioation.PDF Lisa and Co., We regret we could not summarize these answers to your questions in time for the Draft EIS, but are hopeful this might be helpful in preparing for the Final EIS. Noise Mitigation for Sunset Terrace DEIS: The Responsible Entity (City of Renton) does have the authority to exercise the 24 CFR 55.105 exception to raise the acceptable noise zone from 65Ldn to 70Ldn as long as all of the requirements of §55.105 are met and documented with explicit approval from the Certifying Officer (Mayor) as to why the noise attenuation measures that would normally be required for new construction in the Ldn 65 to Ldn 70 zone cannot be met. In addition to the requirements of §51.105, the Special Requirements of §51.104 must also be met, requiring "a minimum of 5 decibels additional sound attenuation for buildings having noise -sensitive uses if the day -night average sound level is greater than 65 decibels but does not exceed 70 decibels, or a minimum of 10 decibels of additional sound attenuation if the day -night average sound level is greater than 70 decibels but does not exceed 75 decibels." Concerning the opening of windows: The opening of windows and the requirements for mechanical ventilation are addressed in Chapter 4, Page 35 of the HUD Noise Guidebook and copied below. Being that opening of windows will expose the units adjacent to Sunset Road to levels above the HUD interior noise maximum of 45 decibels, it is generally required that these units contain sealed windows and that mechanical ventilation be installed. However, there is a cavaet of resident choice in this matter. (1) If it is the resident's choice to open the window, and (2) that choice is not imposed upon them by excessive temperatures or conditions based on regional norms, i.e., (AC not utilized in the NW), and (3) there is no mechanical ventilation or air conditioning present in the rest of the building, and (4) the noise environment external to the building complies with the Site Acceptability Standards of §51.103, and (5) §51.103(c)(ii) the building is constructed in a manner common to the area or, if of uncommon construction, has at least the equivalent noise attenuation characteristics, and (6) the Certifying Officer uses his/her authority to require and RHA accepts that all reasonable attempts will be made to meet the HUD Interior Noise Goals when windows are unopened with §51.101(9} which state that "it is a HUD goal that the interior auditory environmentshall not exceed a day -night average sound level of 45 decibels. Attenuation measures to meet these interior goals shall be employed where feasible. Emphasis shall be given to noise sensitive interior spaces such as bedrooms. Minimum attenuation requirements are prescribed in 51.104(a)., then the project can proceed without the requirement of sealing the windows. Particular attention should be paid to ensure that special construction and ventilation techniques used to address mitigation requirements is done in a fair and equitable manner that does not favor one group of individuals over another. This is, unless of course, particular units or techniques are used to specifically address a particular population (i.e., breathe easy units for those suffering from asthma). Concerning the space between Sunset Rd and the Multifamily structures: Working of the schematics of Alternative 3, of particular interest is the possible open green space between Sunset Rd. and the multifamily structures. We here again get in to the issue of resident choice and opportunity fused with the requirements of acceptable noise levels. As long as residents are not forced to utilize a particular area of a site that exposes them to the highest noise levels of the site, 2 then residents can use that area as long as it is not designed for noise -sensitive uses that could become unsafe for residents. An example of this would be purposively building a playground in the grassy area between Sunset Rd. and the prospective units. The noise level must be at a level where a parent can give directions to their child on that playground in order to provide for their safety. If there were no other options to enjoy a playground except one built where children were forced to play where noise levels are normally unacceptable and unsafe, then this would be unacceptable. It does appear that the planners have contemplated green space throughout the site plan that provide equitable and safe resident options, but the details concerning the subject parcel of land are not apparent through the limited sketches available. — Other thoughts: The Alternative 3 sketch does indicate a good balance between designing a walkable, pedestrian friendly streetscape that allows for an adequate traffic flow, albeit calmed, that has available parking on the street. Perhaps 3 the addition of inter -connected bike lanes throughout the proposed site and NE Sunset Blvd could add to this sustainable neighborhood. 24 CFR Part 58.4(a) stipulates that "Responsible entities shall assume the responsibility for environmental review, decision-making, and action that would otherwise apply to HUD.." We are confident that the City of Renton will take the proper course of action concerning the requirements outlined above and in accordance with all applicable regulations. Final Thought. We appreciate the cooperation and outreach to the HUD office regarding these noise requirements and the redevelopment of Sunset Terrace as a whole. Early involvement is key to a successful partnership and regulatory compliance throughout the length of this project. Windows Sound enters a building through Its acoustically weakest points, and windows are one of the weakest parts of a wall. An open or weak window will severely negate the effect of a very strong wall. Whenever windows are going to be a part of the building design, they should be given acoustical consideration. Figure 17 Illustrates the effects of windows on the sound transmission of wails. For example, If a wail with an STC rating of 45 contains a window with an STC rating of 26 covering 30% of its area, the overall STC of the composite Partition will be 35, a reduction of 10 dB. The following is a discussion of I echniques that can be used to reduce noise in a building by means of Its windows. These techniques range from a blocking of the principal paths of noise entry to a blocking of the most Indirect paths. Close windows. The first step In reducing unwanted sound is to close and seal the windows. The greatest amount of sound insulation can be achieved tl windows are permanently sealed. However, openable acoustical windows have been developed which are fairly effective In reducing sound,' Whether or not the sealing Is permanent, keeping windows closed necessitates the Installation of mechanical ventilation systems. If you are dealing with single family houses and some of the windows are facing away from all noise sources, a whole house fan may be better and cheaper than air conditioning. In muillfamily housing or where all windows are exposed to the noise sources you will have to go with the air conditioning. if windows must be openable, special seals are available which allow windows to be opened -2 Reduce window size. The smaller the windows, the greater the transmission loss of the total partition of which the window Is a part. Reducing the window size is a technique that Is used because (a) It precludes the cost of expensive acoustical windows, and (b) It saves money by cutting down the use of glass. The problems with this technique are (a) it is not very effective in reducing nolse; e.g., reducing the proportion of window to wall size from 50% to 20% reduces noise by only 3 decibels, and (b) many building codes Figure 17 STC 100 50 t4 30 20 10 3 5 10 20 30 50 100 Decibels to be subtracted from STC of wall to obtain off octtve STC of composite bearlsr Increase glass thlekrteas. If ordinary windows are insufficient In reducing noise Impacts in spite of sealing Iachniques, then thicker glass can be Installed, In addition, this glass can be laminated with a tough transparent plastic which Is both Wse and shatter resistant. Glass reduces noise by the mass principle; that Is, the thicker the glass, the more noise resistant it will be. A 112 -Inch thick glass has a maximum STC rating of 35 d8 compared to a 25 dB rating for ordinary 3116 Inch glass. 'U.S. Department of Housing arrd tkban Devetopawnt, A Study of Techniques to Increase the sound Insulation of Building Elements. Report No. WR 73-5. WashiirOon. v.C.,,iune 1973. 2LOs Angeles Department of Airports, Guide ro the Soundiomfing or Existing Homes Ageinsr t:xtedor Noise. Report No - WRC 70-2, March 1970, pp. 9-11, 2.2-X In buinrctWo on use of graph 1, subtract the STC value of the door, window or opening f rorn the STC value of the wall, 2. Enter the vertical axis of the graph at The point that rnetch s the value from step t, 3. Head across to The curve that represents the percentage of the total area of the wal I that is taken up by the door, window, or Owing - 4. Read dawn to the horizontal axis. 5, subtract the value on The horizontal axis from the original STC value of the wall. The result is the composite STC value of the wall and the door, window or opening. 1% — — 2% 10% Olt, 0:� 30% 50% f i 100 °/a 3 5 10 20 30 50 100 Decibels to be subtracted from STC of wall to obtain off octtve STC of composite bearlsr Increase glass thlekrteas. If ordinary windows are insufficient In reducing noise Impacts in spite of sealing Iachniques, then thicker glass can be Installed, In addition, this glass can be laminated with a tough transparent plastic which Is both Wse and shatter resistant. Glass reduces noise by the mass principle; that Is, the thicker the glass, the more noise resistant it will be. A 112 -Inch thick glass has a maximum STC rating of 35 d8 compared to a 25 dB rating for ordinary 3116 Inch glass. 'U.S. Department of Housing arrd tkban Devetopawnt, A Study of Techniques to Increase the sound Insulation of Building Elements. Report No. WR 73-5. WashiirOon. v.C.,,iune 1973. 2LOs Angeles Department of Airports, Guide ro the Soundiomfing or Existing Homes Ageinsr t:xtedor Noise. Report No - WRC 70-2, March 1970, pp. 9-11, 2.2-X In buinrctWo on use of graph 1, subtract the STC value of the door, window or opening f rorn the STC value of the wall, 2. Enter the vertical axis of the graph at The point that rnetch s the value from step t, 3. Head across to The curve that represents the percentage of the total area of the wal I that is taken up by the door, window, or Owing - 4. Read dawn to the horizontal axis. 5, subtract the value on The horizontal axis from the original STC value of the wall. The result is the composite STC value of the wall and the door, window or opening. precludes the cost of expensive acoustical windows, and (b) It saves money by cutting down the use of glass. The problems with this technique are (a) it is not very effective in reducing noise; e.g., reducing the proportion of window to wail size from 50 % to 20 % reduces noise by only 3 decibels: and (b) many building codes require a minimum window to wall size rat Io. Ryan E. Mielcarek PHRS-Facilities Management Dept. of Housing and Urban Development HUD Region X Seattle 206-220-6205 'U.S. department of Housing and Urban Devetoprnent, A Study of Technkpn to increase the Sound Insulation of Wilding Elements. Report No. WR 73-5,Wa bington, D.C., June 1973. 2i..os Angeles DeWment of Airports, Gedde to the Sourtdprooting of Existing Homes Against Exterior Noise. PAPP No. WRC 70-2, March 1870, pp. 9-11, 22-0. In this report, the functh>n and performance of a number of operWe seats are described. RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes January 5, 2011 6:00 p.m. Renton City Hall Council Chambers Planning Commissioners Present: Michael Chen, Michael Drollinger, Ray Giometti, Gwendolyn High, Michael O'Halloran, Nancy Osborn, Kevin Poole, Ed Prince Planning Commissioner Absent: Martin Regge City Staff Present: Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator; Chip Vincent, Planning Director; Erika Conkling, Senior Planner; Judith Subia, Administrative Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER: Commission Chair Prince called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Commission Vice Chair Drollinger called roll. Commissioner Regge was absent and excused. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of November 3, December 1, and December 8, 2010 were approved as written. 4. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED: None 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS: None 6. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None 7. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: • The Quendall Terminals DEIS comment meeting was held last night. As a result of numerous requests, the comment period has been extended. The DEIS will be presented to the Commission in the near future. • CED and Council are working on the 2011 PlanCing-.Work Program. We are looking to schedule a Joint Planning & Development Committee and Planning Commission meeting. Possible dates include February 2, 16, March 2, and 16. • Chip shared a letter from Mayor Law to Rich Wagner, a former PC member of 14 years, who recently received a lifetime achievement award from AIA. S. SUNSET AREA PLANNED ACTION/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) BRIEFING: Alex gave a short introduction regarding the work done so far on this project. Erika and Lisa Grueter, consultant from ICF International, gave a presentation regarding this item. Audience Comment Linda Perrine (Renton, WA): Ms. Perrine owns a duplex near Glenwood and Edmonds. She has a question about new jobs that is referenced in the presentation. She also has a question regarding buildings being built, but no storm improvements being made. Erika answered that these new jobs would be permanent Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2 January 5, 2011 cont. � jobs, not relating to the construction or development of the project. When new buildings are built, the developer needs to comply with the necessary improvements. Howard McOmber, Highlands Community Association President (Renton, WA): Mr. McOmber has a questior regarding greenway drainage. Erika explained that this drainage includes rain gardens or swales that are in the right of way, requiring an 8 -foot planting strip, where a low impact development style stormwater vault 2 can be installed. Mr. McOmber asked if more width for rights of way will be needed. Erika explained that in many cases, the rights of way are very large. There are areas along Sunset Blvd that may need additional right of way. He also asked that the City not use eminent domain, be flexibilie so a developer can be creative with development, and keep the costs (such as impact fees) low for developers. 3 Sandel DeMastus, Highlands Community Association Vice President (Renton, WA): Ms. DeMastus is concerned about the elderly and wants to make sure the seniors and disabled are taken care of. Angie Pretty (Renton, WA): Ms. Pretty had a question regarding housing affordability and its impacts to the 4 School District. Erika answered that the City has been working with RSD to ensure that growth can be accommodated by RSD. 4, 9. SUNSET AREA PLANNED ACTION/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) PAI .HEARING: 3, Audience Comment '`-nom T.Z Kathleen Ossenkop (Renton, WA): Ms. Ossenkop has been a property owner in the Highlands for over 40 years. She has seen a great deal of new investment and revitalization in the last 15 years :'She's concerned 5 that the City does not understand what the long term residents have seen. Adding 500 properties into the Highlands will impact the residents that already live there,, She is in favor of the Evergreen Terrace type of housing for seniors. Karen Williams, Housing Development Consortium of icing County (Seattle, WA): Ms. Williams thanked 6 ,!, City staff for the work that has been doe so far, especially partnering with the Renton Housing `►" Authority to ensure that there are benefits for the low income residents, Lori McFarland (RentonAIVAj Ms. McFarland is grateful for the work that the City is doing. As a long time resident and a desigiengineer, she talked about interconnection of traffic signals. Pedestrians 7 0 ` end up 20 to 25 feet away frnlieavy traffic. This greatly improves traffic congestion and pedestrian — safety. Ms. McFarland is in fav r...' Iternative 43. -- Jim Houghton (Bellevue, WA): Mr. Houghton owns property in the Highlands. He is currently working with the Planning staff to build a 10 -unit condominium project for senior housing with affordable 8 housing. The ARCH (A Regional Coalition for Housing) program greatly facilitates the sales of affordable — housing and encouraged the City to become a part of this program. 10. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Written comments on the Sunset Area Planned Action/EIS will be accepted through January 31, 2011. The next Commission meeting will be on January 19, 2011. 11. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:33 p.m. Ed Prince, Chair Michael O'Halloran, Secretary 2 3� 4 5 Renton Sunset Area Community NEPA/SEPA Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Comment Sheet You are invited to comment on the DEIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, or other information in the document. t� i -T 3 l tr'vt T Q `lV�. l� i S 1 S c +rL [ �Y�e 3 a S drn ti oar s . �1,, �a Q Ge n s -� c- { �#,� -�# �~ ��►a ,r� c a �.-� }.` c. o•f You comr'nents m at the end of this meeting. Or you may submit written comments on or before 5 p.m. January 31, 2011. Send comments to:C+#� {1-• c-- Erika Conkling, AICP CAYtrH�c.�-3 -t a Ad SD - Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econklin rentonwa_ ov I_0f_'6 �G��YII(KA 13 00 (ice K Avf�, P' �w 'Ib5 � 0 •� '� lr M. _ IIIIIIIIII L , MIMI 1 � • 4 i � •r • ` •• lit. L__ f:.L�Y0 J .i•. MOM M-IIIIIMAMANK-MOMMM"A M.P.Mr, 1 ' y 1 -°� ' #� ' -•.. - _'! •10:� _ /tea ' ■ 4 • L IS + ram- t� i -T 3 l tr'vt T Q `lV�. l� i S 1 S c +rL [ �Y�e 3 a S drn ti oar s . �1,, �a Q Ge n s -� c- { �#,� -�# �~ ��►a ,r� c a �.-� }.` c. o•f You comr'nents m at the end of this meeting. Or you may submit written comments on or before 5 p.m. January 31, 2011. Send comments to:C+#� {1-• c-- Erika Conkling, AICP CAYtrH�c.�-3 -t a Ad SD - Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econklin rentonwa_ ov I_0f_'6 �G��YII(KA 13 00 (ice K Avf�, P' �w 'Ib5 � 0 From: Erika Conkling To: Grueter, Lisa; cc: " Roger. Mason @CH2M.com"; Subject: FW: HDC Comments on Sunset Area Date: Monday, January 24, 20114:19:28 PM Attachments: Sunset Area Testimony 1-2011.pdf Erika Conkling, AICP Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econkling@rentonwa.gov From: Karen Williams [ma i Ito: Karen@ housingconsortium.org] Sent: Monday, January 24, 20114:03 PM To: Erika Conkling; Chip Vincent Subject: HDC Comments on Sunset Area Erika & Chip, Attached is my testimony from the Sunset Area public hearing on January 5th. As I've said to both of you, and I mentioned in my testimony, HDC supports the mixed-use, mixed income goals of the Sunset Area plan. HDC wants to ensure that this redevelopment does not increase the affordable housing challenges that low- income, working families already face in Renton, by overlooking the potential loss of private, affordable rental stock and displacement of low-income households. This concern is not unique to Renton, but rather is a challenge in all neighborhood redevelopment, where investments tend to increase property values and displace existing residents when properties are redeveloped and housing costs increase. HDC wants to acknowledge that the city of Renton has demonstrated clear efforts to support affordability in Renton, through its partnership with RHA, through its commitment to capital in its Housing Opportunity Fund, and in policies developed by its human services and planning departments. HDC wants to commend Renton for these accomplishments and hopes that the recommendations attached will be considered as additional tools that the city can use further its affordable housing goals. Thanks to both of you for all you have done on this plan. Thanks, Karen Williams Suburban Cities Policy Director Housing Development Consortium 1402 Third Avenue, Suite 709 Seattle, WA 98101 206.682.9541 www.housingconsortium.oM Every Heart Needs A Home. Join HDC in Olympia on February 14th for Housing and Homelessness Advocacy Day. Help us bring 200 advocates from King County, Register here. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT consortium Date: January 5, 2011 To: Renton Planning Commission Erika Conkling, Department of Community and Economic Development leFrom: Karen Williams, Policy Director, Housing Development Consortium - King County`. RE: Public testimony regarding Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft EIS On behalf of the Housing Development Consortium (HDC), a nonprofit organization comprised of affordable housing developers, private businesses, and public partners whose mission is to ensure housing affordability throughout King County, I would like to thank the Renton City staff and Planning Commission for the thoughtful and collaborative work that has been dedicated to the Sunset Area redevelopment planning. While there are many elements to the Sunset Area redevelopment plan, HDC'5 comments are focused on impacts to affordable housing. Renton city staff have made great strides to work in partnership with the Renton Housing Authority to revitalize the community both to attract new residents and businesses and to improve the quality of housing and services available to existing residents and to a range of household incomes. The plan includes specific points on how the Renton Housing Authority will replace existing public housing with comparable unit size and affordability in the new mixed - income developments and how they will help RHA families with the temporary relocation during construction. Beyond RHA units, the plan does not address housing affordability. There are several privately owned residential buildings in the "Adjacent Area" that currently provide affordable rental housing, but due to their condition, will likely be torn down to meet the desired design and density goals of the redevelopment. The plan does not address how current, low-income residents in non -RHA housing will be addressed through relocation assistance or replacement housing. lof 3 F1 H4C's Affordable Housing p�iembers: Lox -income Housing Organizations Community Devel°Pment Corporations Special Needs Housing organizations Public Housing Auth°r{tles Community Action Agencies Workforce Housing Drganizatlons public oeveloPrnent Authorlties Government Agencies and Commissions Architects and pesigners Development specialists Certified PubllcAceountants ite&r1al Funders and lenders t4ational Funders and Lenders Community Investment SPeclalis property Managers Law Firms Contractors Labor `4-��rdrn8 Dppart4tni 1402 Third Avenue, Suite 709 Seattle, Washington 9810] 206.682.9541 Fax 206.623.4669 www.housingconscrtium..org HDC supports the mixed-use, mixed income goals of the Sunset Area plan and is not suggesting that the city preserve dilapidated, housing. WDC wants to ensure that this redevelopment does not increase the affordable housing challenges that low-income, working families already face in Renton', by overlooking the potential loss of private, affordable rental stock and displacement of low-income households. This concern is not unique to Renton, but rather is a challenge in all neighborhood redevelopment, where investments tend to increase property values and displace existing residents when properties are redeveloped and housing costs increase. MDC trusts that the City of Renton will do all it canto mitigate the negative impacts to existing residents and will continue its reputation of implementing policies and plans to ensure a full range of housing affordability in the Sunset Area redevelopment. Recommended Actions to mitigate harm to low-income residents in non -RHA housing that may be displaced and to realize a full range of affordability in new, mixed -income residential developments. a. Work with private landlords to gather data on existing private market (lousing in the "Adjacent Area" to determine the number and household size of low-income residents. This data would serve two purposes. One purpose is to inform the city about the number of low- income households that may need assistance finding new housing when buildings are redeveloped. Secondly, the data can be used to set targets for the percentage of units that should -be affordable in new- mixed -income developments and what the affordability levels should be. This data would be in addition to any growth projections in the city's Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. b. Engage nonprofit housing providers that can help the city plan for relocation and assist with outreach to the low-income families, so as to minimize negative impacts on children's school attendance or adults' ability to maintain work during relocation. c. Apply best practices learned from other community redevelopment experiences. Many cities across the country have redeveloped neighborhoods with existing residents, and have examples of: how to engage residents in the process; how to engage landlords and developers to mitigate harm to tenants; what kind of resources to offer households (information and financial assistance); how to include affordable replacement units through zoning or developer incentives; and how to ensure existing residents have access to and can afford housing in new developments. t d. Amend the city's existing density incentives to attract developers who can help the city 5 I reach an appropriate blend of affordability in new developments, including rental and 1 Approxlmately 289b of Renton households can't afford a 2 -bedroom apartment and 69% of Renton households cannot afford homeownership. Average 2 -bedroom apartment in Renton is $921/month (Dupre & Scott 2009) or affordable to a household earning $41,000 annually, and approximately 28% of Renton households earn less than $40,000 (SSRI demographic data). Northwest MLS lists a medium home price in Renton as $914,825, requiring a household Income of $91,000 to be affordable and roughly 69% of Renton households learn less than $90,000 per year. 2of 3 homeownership— Currently the city has.a density bonus for developers who. include _ ... . affordable units in new developments. There are some constraints in the existing regulation 5 that may preclude a developer from using the incentive. The city might consider eliminating cont. the requirement that the incentives only apply to parcels that are a minimum of 2 acres, Also, the required affordability level is 50% AMI, and this affordability level may not be financially viable for developers. The city may want to consider a tiered affordability scale based on the number of total units. These changes may more adequately incentivize private developers to include a percentage of affordable units in their residential developments. In summary, HOC wants to acknowledge that the city of Renton has demonstrated clear efforts to support affordability in Renton, through its partnership with RHA, through its commitment to capital in its Housing Opportunity Fund, and in policies developed by its human services and planning departments. HDC wants to commend Renton for these accomplishments and hopes that these recommendations will be considered as additional tools that the city can use further its affordable housing goals. Sof 3 511',11:01 WA:: 1-iIN(J0N' Vo th+vest Re imml Chid! + .3190 16011) At -v .til- • Bvilev4w, WA 98608- 54.52 • 425-64`1-7f10D � 11 for Kcl<;y .1;cr04:(- • Perm)nS tvidr a speech di abijW) can call 8;774,,"f-6 ?41 January 25, 2011 Erika Conkling, AICP Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Dear Ms. Conkling: ISE: DE15 for Sunset Area Community Planned Action Thank you for the opportunity to review the Sunset Area Community Planned Action DEIS. Our comments are below. The City will need to check the available records of the dangerous waste generators, voluntary cleanup sites, underground storage tank sites, and confirmed and suspected contaminated sites list to see what types of confirmed and potential contamination exists in the subsurface soils and groundwater. If redevelopment in those areas requires soil excavation, there will be a need to test soils in the impacted areas for dangerous waste designation purposes. Disposal of contaminated sails will need to follow the dangerous waste regulations. If the soil is not dangerous waste, then at a minimum a disposal option Should be identified that does not create a contaminated .site and is protective of human health and the environment. If you have questions regarding the above comments, please contact Rachel Best at (425) 649-7140 or Dean Yasuda at (425) 649-7264. Questions about the voluntary cleanup program should be directed to Russ Olsen at (425) 649-7038. Sincerely, t, Alice Kelly Regional Planner Northwest Regional Office cc: Rachel Best, Department of Ecology Russ Olsen, Department of Ecology SEPA 201006374 From: Erika Conkling To: Grueter, Lisa; Roger. Mason@CH2M.com; Subject: FW: Submittion of Statement on Sunset Area Community Planned Action Date: Friday, January 28, 20118:01:50 AM Attachments: SunsetAreaCommunityPlannedAction.docx Erika Conkling, AICP Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econkling@rentonwa.gov From: Linda C. Perrine[mailto:Linda.Perrine@accesstpa.com] Sent: Friday, January 28, 20117:22 AM To: Erika Conkling Cc: Linda C. Perrine Subject: Submittion of Statement on Sunset Area Community Planned Action Hello Erica: have finally put together a letter stating some of the concerns on the development right next door to me. I hate this legal stuff and the uncertainty that this development makes me feel with my rental investment. Anyway, I am sending you a letter via post just to be formal about my concerns. But just to make sure you get it before the deadline on January 311t, I am attaching it in this email as well. Thank you for your time in explaining what you could to me. Linda Perrine 303 Seneca Ave NW Renton, WA 98057 Linda.Perrine@accesstpa.com DISCLAIMER: The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. Thank you D January 27, 2011 City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Sunset Area Community Planned Action would like to submit my comments and questions regarding the Sunset Area Community Planned Action using this letter. am the owner of the property located at 1155-57 Glennwood Ave NE, Renton, WA 98057. This property is adjacent to the RHA owned property on Glennwood Ave NE, Renton, WA 98057. My father owns the property on the other side of the RHA and his property is 1133 Glennwood Ave N E. The RHA property between my father and I is mentioned frequently in the Sunset plan as being slated to be developed with high density housing. The current use of our properties are rentals which we try to keep in good repair and try to rent to responsible families. I have just lately moved from living in my rental and had lived it in for 15 years so I am quite attached to it still and my ties to this property are strong. This is our only rental properties that we own. We are not developers or business owners. My father is a retired person of 80 years old with modest to no income. I am single and have just purchased a house on the west side of Renton above the airport. I have tried my best to read and understand the over 400 pages of the EIS .statement and I have several concerns regarding this project and the impact to our rental properties. The concerns that I will make below are purely on the development being planned on the RHA property between mine and my father's property. My comments also pertain to all alternatives because each of the 3 alternatives have a building(s) being built on this RHA property next to me and my father. They just vary in size and impactto me. To prevent me from rambling or repeating myself I would like to bullet point my comments and tell you why I have issues with it and then go on to the next issue and then close my letter. ■ The building(s) being built are not of the same type as the surrounding neighborhood. The current houses are duplexes with 1 family on each side of the duplex. So having a large building, and in some alternatives, a set of buildings with multiple floors and lots of families will not be in character to the current neighborhood. I realize that the zoning allows for this, and I fought tooth and nail against that re -zoning, and lost, of course. • The zoning allows for building bonuses that are unreasonable to this neighborhood. These plans take advantage of that and they are building to the highest extent of that code. Again this high 2 density is not in line with the present housing type and I have never agreed with it. The zoning was in great opposition when it was put in place and now I am going to get it right next door to the highest level. It is unsuitable and will change the character to the property I bought. 1 • Glennwood Ave NE is one lane wide: Hardly wide enough to support parking and a right of way at the same time. And certainly not if cars park on both side of the street. It was never 3 intended to have a high density building on this street and the traffic that goes with it. The development plans are not planning on addressing this and ignore this fact entirely. The people who live on this street often park on the sidewalk as it is because parking a car on the street feels like you are actually in the right of way. • There is not enough parking to support the current residents so if the parking for these 4 building's happen to overflow onto Glennwood Ave from the planned parking lot, then they will take the parking of the current residents and the area will be less friendly to sustain my renters. As Families with children play in the street with bikes and other toys. This is a family area and not much traffic comes through so parents feel fairly safe with the kids outside riding bikes, trikes 5 and other activities. These kids are too young to allow walking to a park without parents. Often the parents are inside cooking etc. where going to the park is not possible so either the kids play right outside or not at all. The more traffic the less that play is possible and the more dangerous it becomes. • These new buildings will cast shade on our duplexes making them less attractive to live at: My renters can put sun chairs outside and enjoy the sun and a garden but these buildings will block light and the feel of openness will be lost and recoupable. 70 The parking area in all of the alternatives will have 24 hours light will cast light inside our duplexes and our properties making it feel intrusive and commercial. • The attraction of a duplex is that you are not living in a commercial area: I have attracted many 81 renters in the past because they don't want to live in a high residential area. I am now going to lose that as an attraction for a renter because I have high density housing right next door. • Increased traffic of strangers to the neighborhood: The increase of pedestrian traffic unknown 9 to my renters and neighbors will be unsettling and make my renters feel vulnerable. Another attraction of our duplexes are that we are off the beaten road so less traffic means a lower profile. These proposed buildings change that feel and expirence. 10 + The turnover of the residents in these apartment buildings will be unsettling and will also make my renters feel vulnerable and I will lose the feeling of consistency and safety. • Increased noise: The noise of vehicles parking, starting, large garbage trucks (they come early in the morning), cars traveling too fast, people talking and interacting outside will increase and will be at inconvenient times of the day. I speak from reference because there is a 2 story apartment complex on Edmonds Ave and their parking lot shares a fence line with the back of my property. Even though that parking lot butts up to my fairly large back yard as is away from the actual living area in my duplex, I have a lot of noise from it. From car alarms, people working on their cars, people talking and/yelling, garbage trucks. You name it, it happens. Especially in lower rent areas where behaviors sometimes are not as neighborly or thoughtful. • Garbage thrown over the fence onto my property: Again I speak from experience that garbage will be thrown from the new properties apartment building and parking area over the shared 12 fence onto my property. My experience that oil containers, soda cans to used drug needles are thrown over. I was able to combat that a little by creating a very tall tree barrier along my rear fence but I'm sure a 20 foot string of trees dividing my property and the RHA property is not going to be wanted and it is difficult for me to maintain. 1 3 • Construction activity will negatively impact our ability to rent and to retain current renters. The noise the dust the large machine activity. • I am unable to determine from the alternatives what the building layout will actually be because 14 the current zoning code says that parking must be in behind the housing and in alternative 2 or 3 (1 can't remember) the parking lot is shown to be right off of Glennwood. How can I state my comments in whole when they don't even know what they are going to do? I have listed several but not all of my concerns. I would like to have the ability to bring up issues as they 15 arise. I am also concerned that the RHA not having to submit EIS's on additional building projects as they go along because it would negate me being able to comment on them. I realize that it is easier and more cost effective for them but how will the public who will be impacted get any say? Thank you for your attention on this issue and please contact me if there are any questions or if further clarification is needed. Linda Perrine 306 Seneca Ave NW Renton, WA 98057 Linda, Perrine@Accesstpa.com 3 From: Erika Conkling 9 To: Grueter Lisa• Ro er.Mason CH2M.com; Subject: FW: DOI Comments - DEIS for HUD Sunset Area Community Planned Action Date: Friday, January 28, 20118:01:38 AM Attachments: ER10 1074 deis. df Erika Conkling, AICP Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econkling@rentonwa.gov From: Mandy Stanford [mailto:m-stanford@gwestoffice.net] Sent: Thursday, January 27, 20114:23 PM To: Erika Conkling Cc: 'Allison O'Brien' Subject: DOI Comments - DEIS for HUD Sunset Area Community Planned Action Attached, please find the Department of the Interior's comments on the subject DEIS. Thank you, Mandy Mandy Stanford Regional Environmental Protection Assistant United States Department of the Interior 620 SW Main Street, Suite 201 Portland, OR 97205 Phone: (503) 326-2489 Fax: (503) 326-2494 qp S T OF rhF aw ym d p S ARCH 3 1a 9043.1 IN REPLY REFER T6 ER 10/ 1074 United States Department of the Interior Electronically Filed Erika Conkling AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 620 SW Main Street, Suite 201 Portland, Oregon 97205-3026 Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Dear Ms. Conkling: TAKE PRIDE' INAMERlCA January 27, 2011 The Department of the Interior has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the HUD Sunset Area Community Planned Action, City of Renton, Washington. The Department does not have any comments to offer. We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Allison O'Brien Acting Regional Environmental Officer 3316 NE 12" Street Renton, WA 98056-3429 January 30, 2010 Erika Conkling, Senior Planner Alex Pietsch, Administrator and City of Renton Planning Commission City of Renton Community and Economic Development 1055 S_ Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Dear City of Renton Officials, Page one of three This letter highlights my concerns concerning your plans for Renton's "Sunset Area" and associated environmental impact statement presented January 5, 2011 to the Renton Planning Commission. The Community and Economic Development section of Renton City government is intended "to enhance economic development, vitality and livability." "Neighborhood revitalization" is an anticipated outcome. The words with quotes are taken directly from City of Renton web site. have been a homeowner and resident of Renton Highlands "Sunset Area' for 45 years. In the past 15 years the "Sunset Area" hasbrought in numerous businesses. I have seen °economic development" take place in this area. I have seen the following: 1) Grocery Outlet revitalized the bowling alley building 2) Walgreens revitalized Jack's Drive In, Baskin & Robbins, Nutrition Store and gas station 3) ,jewelry Exchange revitalized a bank 4) Pay Day revitalized a bank 5) St. Vincent DePaul moved into a prior Albertson's Grocery. 6) Good Will moved into prior Cosco drug store 7) Rite Aide built in area of small shop strip mall which housed a neighborhood restaurant 8) Mai Place Restaurant restored a building left vacant for years by a pizza shop 9) Tea Palace restored a building left vacant by a furniture store 10) Dollar Store moved into a closed .furniture store location 11) Viet-Wah Asian Market moved into a closed drug store and card shop 12) Ring Ring wireless added a contract US Post Office to its site on the corner of a strip mall which originally housed a real estate office. 13) Evergreen Terrace Retirement Center The City of Renton built a new fire station between the Renton Library and Rite Aide. 2 This impacted a section of the Sunset Area with noise from sirens not previously impacted by this outrageous noise. Such noise impacts the sleep of those residences in the area of State Highway 900, Monroe Ave N., Edmonds Avenue and 12th Avenue North. The City of Renton recently transferred the Highlands library to King County following an election; the transfer passed by only 56 votes. This move has brought extreme crowded 3 conditions to the interior and exterior of this small community library. As stated by Erika Conkling, during the EIS presentation, King County Library has no current plans to build a new library. The comfortable library now crowded is a loss to Highlands's residents. Page two of three Renton School District revitalized McKnight Jr. High School and Highlands Elementary within the past few years. Recently also Kennydale Elementary was rebuilt. Now Honeydew Elementary is being renovated. What I see is fewer and fewer students walking on 12th Street to attend McKnight High School. I see large numbers of busses pulling out of the parking lot at McKnight delivering students elsewhere because the neighborhood schools are filled to 4 capacity. There are numerous school busses on 4th Avenue and Highway 16 at certain times of the day delivering students elsewhere. The Renton Highlands Sunset Area "vitality and livability" has been fractured by the school crowding. Students who live within a one mile walk of a neighborhood school are now being bussed elsewhere. Adding another.479 residential housing units to the Renton Highlands Sunset Area will further impact "vitality and livability" in this neighborhood. Do you know that students residing south of NE 12th Street are bussed to Renton High School in downtown Renton and to Demitt Jr. High in Skyway? Should not the schools be the hub for "vitality and livability" in a community? T For over 15 years. the Highlands Shopping area (split in half by State Highway 900) has continued to serve the neighborhood with numerous restaurants namely: 1) Thai formerly Skippers 2) Plum Delicious formerly The Colliery 3) Peking Palace 4) LaFurente 5) Pho Soup This continuous economic development in the Renton Highlands increases the "vitality and 5 livability" of the neighborhood. The low density residential dwellings in the Renton Sunset Area contribute to the "vitality and livability of the neighborhood. The City of Renton's proposal to add 479 high density dwellings to the Sunset Area will greatly impact the "vitality and livability" of the neighborhood. Crowding will be the result just like the current crowding brought to the neighborhood library. "Livability" means not having to drive round and round the blodk to find a place to park and then having to walk 1 or 2 blocks in the rain to arrive at a place of business. City of Renton officials need to.look at.current residences within 1 mile of the proposed 479 low and medium income residences. Numerous residences within 1 mile7of this proposed project a clearly low and medium income residences. Look at the numerous 2 bedroom cement block residences near the Renton Vocational School and the two bedroom residences in the Windsor area above Sunset Blvd. and the modest and run down residences on NE 12th Street and modest apartments on 12th Street and 1 block south of '12th Street. 6 The Renton Sunset Area is already riddled with low income and modest income residences. Numerous low income residences are owned by private investors. I've been told one private investor owns one square block of WWII duplexes next to McKnight High School. My question to the City of Renton Officials is this "Does the Renton Sunset Area Highlands really need more low and modest income residential dwellings?" Do persons of low and medium income prefer high density living in an area of 479 residential housing units? Does 479 unit high density family housing facilitate "vitality and livability"? Previously, the schools were the hub for "vitality and livability" in this community. How much additional noise, bus 7T and auto traffic do you project from the increased population to the Sunset Area by 479 7 cont Page three of three residences? How much additional crime will this 479 unit high density housing bring to the .Renton Highlands Sunset Area? The December Renton burglary report for the Northeast 8 area adjacent to the Renton Highlands Sunset Area showed 9 burglaries, more burglaries than 4 other sections of the city. Burglaries and auto theft is currently a problem in the Renton Highlands and certainly this impacts the "vitality and livability" of a community. 9 City of Renton Officials, Have you looked at what happened to the Kent Schools following increased low and modest income high density housing? Do you know parents of Kent students speak over 90 languages? What is this impact on "vitality and livability" in a community when there is no common language? Have you looked at the crime associated with low and modest income high density housing? Have you considered the rush of developers making proposals for increasing the housing density in the Highlands Sunset Area following the 479 Renton Housing Authority developments? What will happen to the "vitality and livability"? Would you want to live in such a community? Have you considered that the Highlands Sunset Area has a "vitality and livability" today because it is a low density housing'area of low and medium income? Have you seriously considered housing needs of persons over age 55 or 55 and the lesser impact on the neighborhood schools and neighborhood traffic? 1 experienced first hand a developer that took legal action on the residents of my street in an attempt to break our King County registered covenants. Developers are looking for areas to 10 develop for profit. The neighborhood is left with the result which impacts "vitality and livability". City of Renton Officials, please protect the Renton Highlands from high density developers who can change the face and environment of the Highlands Community forever. 11 In closing, I have seen neighborhood revitalization in the Renton Highlands Sunset area within the past 15 years and continuing to the present time. The economic development contributions have increased the livability and vitality of the area. The housing boom east of the Renton Highlands has seriously impacted the neighborhood schools in the Renton Highlands Sunset area. Today is not the time to increase low income and medium income family housing in the Renton Highlands Sunset. This area already has a high percentage of low income and medium income housing at the present time. The comfortable quiet library is now crowded with King County citizens previously a Renton citizen benefit. Please act to protect the recent economic development, the vitality, livability and neighborhood revitalization that's currently making Renton Highlands an affordable choice for family and senior citizen living. Please act to eliminate the criminal element in the Renton Highlands. Sincerely, �4 4a ' Y Kathleen Ossenkop 11 From: Grueter, Lisa To: Bendixen, Carmen; Subject: FW: Sunset Area Planned Action Comments Date: Monday, January 31, 2011 1:02:42 PM Another one... From: Erika Conkling [mailto:EConkling@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 1:02 PM To: Grueter, Lisa; Roger.Mason@CH2M.com Subject: FW: Sunset Area Planned Action Comments Erika Conkling, AICP Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-5578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econkling@rentonwa.gov From: Mylarsen [mailto:mylarsen@aol.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 12:39 PM To: Erika Conkling Subject: Sunset Area Planned Action Comments I reviewed the binder explaining the various redevelopment proposals for the Sunset area. My observations are: 1 The Highlands Library definitely needs a larger facility. The public computer stations need to be increased. 2 The layout of the Highlands retail spaces, and ingress and egress, are jumbled and need to be redefined_ The Harrington Square Apts staff were hoping to rent 52 units by 12/31/10. Instead, 3 they rented over 100 units. There is a definite demand for more and better housing in the area. 4 With the "graying of America," the Highlands could benefit from having dedicated senior citizen housing. The children of Sunset Terrace need the community facilities area, so that they have another place to play and congregate, other than in the street. 6 The increase in mixed -income units would benefit both the library expansion and the new retail space. The traffic corridor along Sunset needs to be enhanced to better protect the pedestrian. Adding trees and plants would help. Let's put Renton into the group of "intelligent cities" by proceeding with the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Plan #3. Keep up the good work, Erika! Myrne Larsen 950 Harrington NE, N306 (formerly lied 20 years in Lower Kennydale) Renton, WA 98056-3125 425-442-2641 From: Grueter, Lisa To: Bendixen Carmen - Subject: FW: Sunset Area Community Planned Action, LUA10-052. Draft NEPA/ SEPA Environmental Impact Statement Date: Monday, January 31, 20114:07:09 PM Attachments; RTabor-Seattle-mtq-12-08-2010f 1].T)df Another one From: Erika Conkling [mailto:EConkling@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Monday, January 31, 20114:02 PM To: Grueter, Lisa; Roger.Mason@CH2M.com Subject: FW: Sunset Area Community Planned Action, LUA10-052. Draft NEPA/ SEPA Environmental Impact Statement Erika Conkling, AICP Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econkling@rentonwa.gov From: Karen Walter[mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Monday, January 31, 20114:00 PM To: Erika Conkling Subject: Sunset Area Community Planned Action, LUA10-052. Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement Ms. Conkling, The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the above referenced project. We offer the following comments in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe's treaty protected fisheries resources. 1. As noted in the DEIS, 243 acres of the proposed redeveloped area (from a total of 269 acres in the Planned Action Study Area) drain to Johns Creek, a tributary to Lake Washington. We are concerned that the DEIS did not adequately address potential impacts to Johns Creek and salmon that use it, 1 in particularly juvenile chinook (see attached PDF). Nowhere in the DEIS does it mention salmon use in Johns Creek and the potential for stormwater discharges to adversely salmon in Johns Creek. In fact, the DEIS states (on page 3.4-1), "stormwater originating from most of the Planned Action Study Area enters the City storm sewer system and has no potential to affects cont. plants or animals." Furthermore, the DEIS states (page 3.4-3), "No aquatic habitat has been identified within the Planned Action Study Area, but aquatic habitat does occur in the form of streams in Honey Creek and May Creek, which receive stormwater from portions of the Planned Action Study Area." Again, Johns Creek is not mentioned in this section or adequately assessed for potential impacts to juvenile salmon in Johns Creek from stormwater discharges (both quantity and quality. The FEIS needs to provide additional information and analysis to address this concern. 2. We are concerned that stormwater discharges as a result of projects implemented under this DEIS (regardless of alternative chosen) could further degrade habitat conditions for juvenile salmon in Johns Creek. Per the DEIS, Johns Creek is a flow -control -exempt water body (page 3.3-1). As a result, stormwater detention is not required for projects discharging stormwater to Johns Creek. As noted in the attached PDF, Johns Creek is providing important non -natal habitat for juvenile chinook. Juvenile salmon can be flushed out of streams as a result of stormwater discharges that occur from 2 both increases in peak flows as well as longer durations of higher flows that create flushing conditions and flow conditions that exceed juvenile salmon's abilities to maintain positions. Per the DEIS, it appears that City may require additional flow control within the Johns Creek Basin to match peak flow rates under existing conditions. This approach will not address increases in water flow durations and will likely result in adverse impacts to juvenile salmon in Johns Creek that could potentially be avoided. Instead, we recommend that the projects within Johns Creek basin be required to comply with the more stringent Flow Control Duration Standard as required for May and Honey Creek basins to protect juvenile salmon and low velocity habitat in Johns Creek. 3. We also recommend that all projects developed and redeveloped under this proposal, regardless of the chosen alternative, maximize the use of low impact development techniques to better manage stormwater discharges and stormwater water quality and reduce potential impacts to improve 3 downstream receiving water conditions. Low impact development techniques include a variety of measures, including but not limited to, the treatment and infiltration of stormwater to reduce stormwater impacts generated at the developed site. A full suite of low impact development techniques should be considered to minimize stormwater impacts and maximize mitigation throughout the planned action study area. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal and its associated DEIS. Please let me know if you have any questions. IThank you, L, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 1 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 L, .� -. H r ��i.�r `"� i._ �� -.- ._ '-. �� *, Y F � , �� +; ��f "y�{n � � ` . • �-M.� �yly�e� ,, _�:ti+^�� .r�+ { ,' J �� ._ .� -. H r ��i.�r `"� i._ �� -.- tU >I 4- O O _ W U C co U) U) U) cam.) :2: O QJ U 'L Co L- =5 C6 L L p Co Co J W"7 W❑ Z J m W W � O p � CO a r co [4 O C C (o J N >>, Ca Z [i L c U p L Cts C N ��II �L Z C) _ ❑ F•�- LL h-- N N U J W . . . . . . . . . . . . . r � � L E cccn 0 V J a cU N pp L U C_i N a Uc -.c (Dc o 0 a U C) 12 W E4-1 4-1 (Zm a a� m a _ O a� E m Q= o U W in W U? U) 00 2 U) U) W P 2 U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �1 I , M s � - Cf)W .- > 4i �= rMEN% 0 4� 0 L 0 0 ■� Q r s L 0 0 � � L .0 MOM L ° o ._ �c }, 0 r, r r(1) CL 43 J s 4 CL 0 i CL �+ SOMME 0 c;) M � �# • MME 0 cur0Cl) m E � L 0 70 m 0 4� c (1) CL 0 SIMMONS E .... ,,�_ 0 E L� a••i � L o L 0ME �0 a) 0_ ❑ V V C O 0 0 a s C3 0 a s V L c� 4- 0 L m 0. Alma 4� E 0 E r .r. E L *MJ 0 AMM& s 0 E R� 0 0 .a 4- 0 0 CL s � 4- 0 � J — W ca I i C: 4-0 0C: � CO 0 4-a E -0 0 C: C: 0 0 U) -�-a 0 CD M CD -04-a C: .s C� _ � .C: : � ._C: L) m 4-� C:) p N L CQ =3 M4� CCS C� E CO .F., �J p ,� > M v� 04-1 E o CU (n W p CD_ - � v ■ 1 L 00 00 4 - CD o o L o C) o a o a N N N -2-0N 40-1E 1 1 m I m r Ir- d- ..0 ti � CD a o o 0 C) a m o a N 1 N J N C. N * gym: V:. ._ 0 0 13 0 AW CD 500 E m co M�d0 0 m midL 0 r •44 Lawe Wash"tngton L � M M L) U ci� •— V E cn A \ i J Lawe Wash"tngton L � M M L) U ci� 0 0 C: w 0 U) m W ANA a m L:� VJ 4-a c co L E U U I I AM no W I w 4-+ -9 0 4-j 0 E VJ W a) �I LJ i� (D S. L) co 0 �1 3: LL W W `❑0 c Q N N 1 u f R � ■� Q Q 4 _ C) }' ICL ° Q CL N EMon � .� Q � Q � J L � J -LL � Ll.r 9 mm r � am ■ 0 .C: a E u� Jc: Ca Z3 4-a 4-a 4-a C }, a 0 4-- � .0 ._.. E 0 ❑ ❑ co ❑ Luz F� t -:E -j (u,) yldap ueaW N r 1-0 Q t� r M II z ,7jllr,m-1 w r 00 C� d' N C3 0 o c a Lo� Lei �o N v � I m LL J ma 4 a (D N v ■ r r v v o zua /)IOOUIM140 O N LO TM v r LO 0 rrrr a L CD m Ma 4D V a� u m U) a� v s HE N L Q L Z 0 0 V U rm /*No./� �Y I I rr�^ VJ I co Ln th N r o io in m cV r O c v c o 0 0 0 o v 6 c c ( p) pini43019g L 73 a cn O U 1 I � I � l m Ln I I N 1 I � I m � � 1 I I I U /*No./� �Y I I rr�^ VJ I co Ln th N r o io in m cV r O c v c o 0 0 0 o v 6 c c ( p) pini43019g L 73 a cn O U L L 0 0- a. cn 00 cc lqr N o G 6 O C L O E m O z z z L m L a z (n) A}ingOaIaS CD 0!A 0- 0 F� 0o cfl cv a c o o a N Q 0 LO C1 0 L L I � I 0 04 ca 0o cn 0 0 0 6 ( X) ) AI!AIIOGIOS -rr 0 O V O :4-0 m . :lJ rl i 0 04 U OU 010ou 43 # C qt 0 N O N ------ ---- Ca r� C N O Od C4 � N r r O O U OU 010ou 43 # C qt 0 N O N ------ ---- Ca r� C N O Od C4 � N r r U OU 010ou 43 # C qt 0 N O N -,hhRF ie ; 2i Y 00 17 pu "' e. y,r'qr O O G t _ C . F � r, W 0 0 Y N -,hhRF ie ; 2i Y L s R4 rA I :LM i FJF-- .6 ef CL Q v LM [a f �l H N oc0 dam' )IOOuiuo 10 # o� s �ti ��O �s 0 0 0 0 00 O 00 CO et N r )jOOuILIO 10 # i I 0 10 u N LO r L r O i M M N N r Aoouigo jo jaquanN .r E J C UL X E W LO 00 E NCD � N I J U ca � Ci ■ L a M M N N r Aoouigo jo jaquanN .r 9 5 A I ■ Irv,, (1) ®rqr 41000 co::,A L �Q 0 o zt13 3 IFOO`x 4 i 1 E 1 (OP * ' 1 111. 7A 14 1 q - 0 Lr) CY) C14 w 1 310OU1.143 0 FI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M40UILio jo jegwnN Ir �m .i 6 � t• e, y l .F 1, S on'm - Ir JO >f f OrA n r� E m E E m cn 0 Je m A 0 -J i m J9 m J N � 00 CD 4T CV O V-1 O G 6 G zw/NOOuiu3 0 LO m N r a tom... Fm ■iE ME w0 z 0 0 v r m 0 tact 40 le M N O Moouiyo jo aagwnN u c� �r El 0 0 co '"r IUOOJad d} E O o a f O Q U L �L �+ ML W 0 0 co '"r IUOOJad 0 m Q) .00---% a M M (n = r 4) CL E- a 13 0 E 0 z P a 0 .� r t , r!'* jw U L o � U a CL a � L � L Cl) a O � ■_ r s a 0 .� r t , r!'* jw "00087 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 13 REGION 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 981 01-31 40 �',G PA OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS. TRIBAL AND PUBLfC AFFAIRS January 31, 2011 Erika Conkling, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Re: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 Comments on the Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) (EPA Project Number: 10 -051 -HUD) Dear Ms. Conkling: . The EPA has reviewed the Sunset Area Community Planned Action DEIS. We are submitting comments in accordance with our responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. Under our policies and procedures, we evaluate the environmental impact of the proposed action and the adequacy of the impact statement. We have assigned an Environmental Concerns - Adequate (EC -1) rating to the DEIS. A copy.of the EPA rating system is enclosed. We appreciate the City of Renton's efforts to lay the foundation for the redevelopment of Sunset Terrace into a healthy, livable, affordable, viable and green community. Your approach appears well suited to leveraging investment into an existing community and is generally consistent with the HUD -DOT -EPA Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities' (Partnership) six livability principles.' We also note your substantial NEPA analysis. The DEIS addresses all of our scoping comments. Our EC -1 rating is based on our concern that mitigation goals are not sufficiently linked to a monitoring plan or program. Our suggested corrective measures focus on the combination of and linkages between mitigation measures and sustainability features, and, monitoring their implementation and effectiveness. The targets and decision thresholds of a monitoring plan or program are a key part of ensuring that the predicted environmental impacts are achieved and the objectives of the proposal are met. This is especially true for a project involving such a large group of diverse stakeholders with real estate and other transactions over a long period of time. In addition to our enclosed comments, which focus on mitigation and monitoring, we 1 http://epa.govtdceftartnership/index.htmi *PrftMW on A&9~Pa W recommend you review and consider the Council on Environmental Quality's recent Final Guidance on the Appropriate Use of Mitigation and Monitoring.'` We would like to thank you for this opportunity to comment and also for the time you have spent communicating directly with us and the public on the Project. The City's substantial efforts are apparent in the quality and forward thinking nature of your proposal. If you have any questions or concerns please contact Erik Peterson of my staff at (206) 553-6382 or by electronic mail at pete-son.erik@ena.gov . You may contact me at (206) 553-1601. Sincerely, Christine B. Reichgott, Unit Manager Environmental Review and Sediment Management Unit Enclosures: EPA Detailed Comments on the Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement EPA Rating System for Draft Environmental Impact Statements 2 hltV://www. %Vbilehouse.,ov/sites/default/liles/microsiLes/L:eu/(} I r c20141;i-201 1 ! � 2{}A1itlLation� (20andl7(2OMonitorin g%20Guidancc.ndf QPrMfod an Aetyded Paper 2 3 EPA DETAILED COMMENTS ON THE SUNSET AREA COMMUNITY PLANNED ACTION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Sustainability Features and the Environmentally Preferred Alternative In our scoping comments we noted that the, "...environmental impacts of the project may be as much a function of planning concepts and design guidelines/ mitigation measures as it is a function of the intensity and density of redevelopment (number of units, square footage of office and retail and acreage of open space)." The DEIS has incorporated this concept into the analysis. For example, although the number of redeveloped properties, size of roofs and width of right of way for Sunset Boulevard all increase the most under Alternative 3, the relatively increased Low Impact Development (LID) practices (green connections, rain gardens, cisterns, etc.) sufficiently compensate (DEIS, p. 4.6-7). However, in the case of impacts to plants and animals, project design and mitigation measures (mainly LID practices) are not sufficient to compensate for Alternative 3's increased density (DEIS, p. 4.4-4). Conclusions such as the two noted above are responsive to our scoping comment that the Project's environmental impacts are influenced by the degree and also the nature of redevelopment. Now, with an overall adequate NEPA analysis, we believe the City is well suited to identify, or develop and identify the environmentally preferred alternative. According to the Council on Environmental Quality, "The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's Section 101."5 As projects such as Sunset Terrace that are focused on sustainability move forward, we would note and remember that the NEPA Statute language, written more than thirty years ago, still provides valuable guidance for contemporary decision making. NEPA Section 101 states that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government, "...to use all practicable means ... to the end that the Nation may -- 1. fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; 2. assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; 3 3. attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; 4. preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice; 5. achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and b. enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources." 'Building height and massing, open space, topography, connections/ edges, circulation, land use. 4 Opportunities for infrastructure, energy and transportation needs with respect to greatest possible efficiency s htta://ceg.hss.doe.gov/nepa/iees/4011-_IO.HTMf6 *PO4 G"R8* MAF►' 3 cont V 4 EPA believes the environmentally preferred alternative (the alternative that promotes the national environmental policy) for this project is likely the alternative which incorporates the maximum extent of implementable features consistent with the current state of science regarding quality urban design, sustainable urban redevelopment, and livability principles6 . We refer to these features as "sustainability features". Within the DEIS, sustainability features are both elements of the action alternatives and mitigation measures. Below, we list the sustainability features found within and outside of the DEIS, which we believe may be especially consistent with an environmentally preferred alternative. The maximum extent of sustainability features for this project (not necessarily the maximum extent of potentially implementable sustainability features) likely includes (i) all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and commitments; (ii) all or most of the features common to both alternatives -2 and 3 as well as all of the mitigation measures already committed to in DEIS section 1.6; (iii) many of the elements limited to Alternative 3 and some of the elements limited to Alternative 2; (iv) numerous potential mitigation measures described throughout the DEIS; and, (v) some potential sustainability features not addressed within the DEIS. We assume that all of the regulatory commitments and features relating to points (i) and (ii) will be carried through the Record of Decision. Our perspective on points (iii), (iv) and (v) are described below. With regard to features limited to alternatives 2 or 3 (point (iii)), we 'recommend the following be carried forward - or seriously considered - as elements of a potential environmentally preferred alternative or as elements common to all alternatives. • pedestrian supportive signals • narrow lanes to reduce crossing distances • realign skewed intersections and reduce crosswalk distances • widen sidewalks to meet complete streets minimums (8 ft sidewalks and 8 ft. landscape strips) • plant new street trees in landscape strip along corridor • use special paving within intersections • special concrete bus pad in roadway at transit stops • new local transit service connecting across SR900 to Community Center/Library • require green stormwater infrastructure including non -infiltrating practices • green parking lot standards • rainwater harvesting • bioretention planters with detention • pursuit of the family village concept With regard to potential mitigation measures described throughout the DEIS (point (iv)), we recommend the following be carried forward - or seriously considered - 5 as elements of a potential environmentally preferred alternative or as elements common to all alternatives. bh /www.epa.gov/srnart--r-o%-&.iY rine[ship/#livabilityprig6ples 5 cont. D 61 From section 1.6 and elsewhere in the DEIS o pursue maximum implementation of Breathe Easy Homes? air quality features, including, but not limited to: ■ use of low VOC building materials and coatings ■ pursue enhanced building ventilation and room air filtration install dust -free floor materials and low -pile carpeting to reduce dust build-up o require future developers to pursue a specific energy conservation approach/ standard(s) (E.g., Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers Advanced Buildings Core Performance Guide, Architecture 2030) o require adequate noise mitigation to ensure compliance with the City's noise ordinance o establish a local preference for rental assistance o plan for public seating, art in public spaces, and, secure bicycle storage o develop and commit to a plan to address recreation facility level of service deficiencies o develop new affordable housing prior to demolishing Sunset Terrace public housing a From Table 4.2-8. Potential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures. o incorporate on-site renewable energy production o energy efficient street lighting o green roofs, highlalbedo roofing o eliminate or reduce use of refrigerants in HVAC systems o use water conserving fixtures that surpass building code requirements o encourage or require water reuse o recycle and use recycled demolition and construction materials o use local building materials o size parking capacity to not exceed local parking requirements and, where possible, seek reductions in parking supply through special permits or waivers o encourage or require bicycle storage and showers/ changing rooms With regard to sustainability features not listed in the DEIS (point (v)), we recommend the following be seriously considered as elements of a potential environmentally preferred alternative or as elements common to all alternatives. 7 Additional construction emission control measures from EPA's compilation of language used in contracts, codes, laws, rules and other measures for addressing air quality issues, particularly diesel emissions, from construction equipment and other diesel sources.8 The Northeast Diesel Collaborative Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects - Model Contract Specification may be particularly useful.9 7 http://seattlehousing.org/redevelopmentthigh-poinL/breathe-easy/ a http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diieseYconstruction/contract-lang.htm s http://www.epa.goy/otaq/diesellconstruction/documents/cl-nedc-model.pdf 4OP MWonA"+eMdPipu' 7 cont. 9 10 0 • Mid -block connection requirement to facilitate informal pedestrian connections (do not develop super blocks). • Development of a Transportation Management District to fund parking and to manage mobility programs required on the site. • Size community gardens according to criteria adopted by the City of Vancouver, B.C. Their guidelines state that 30% of the housing units should have access to garden plots that are a minimum of 3' by 8'.10 Recommendation: While we believe the features listed above are especially consistent with NEPA Section 101, we recognize that implementing certain features may involve trade-offs. To address trade-offs, optimize funding strategies, and, maximize the extent of environmental benefits, we recommend that the City of Renton develop, utilize, describe and disclose in the FEIS, the results of a systematic analytical process to determine the maximum combination of implementable sustainability features. The results of this analysis should inform the identification of the environmentally preferable alternative. The results may also help to identify specific monitoring thresholds (see "Monitoring" below). The Seattle Housing Authority's Yesler Terrace Sustainable District Study may be a useful example. Monitoring In our scoping comments we stated, "...monitoring associated with the overall redevelopment effort is an opportunity to both learn about and learn from livability measures and tools. Efforts to benchmark existing conditions; develop tools to measure progress towards achieving community visions; and, increase the accountability of engaging in sustainable redevelopment may help to (i) move the national dialogue on livability measures forward, and, (ii) effectively measure the performance of your efforts." DEIS Appendix C Section 4 A and B address our continent by noting that monitoring will occur and that, based on this monitoring, the City may propose amendments to the Planned Action Ordinance and/or may supplement or revise the Planned Action EIS. In order to best facilitate this monitoring and adaptive management we believe the FEIS should include additional clarifying information for both mitigation (see above) and monitoring (see recommendations below). Recommendation: • We recommend that mitigation measures and sustainability features be specific and quantitative wherever possible, e.g., "PM Peak Hour Trips". Phrases such as "encourage" and/or "could" should be minimized in favor of specific targets and decision thresholds. 10 Source: Yester Terrace Sustainable District Study - http://www.seattlehousing.org/redevelopment/pdfNT_S"tainabic_District_Study.pdf lopd4tsdaa Rscyeadpopw 10 a We recommend the Planned Action Ordinance's Exhibit B contain sufficient coat. information to serve as a stand-alone document. References to the FEIS and ROD should be limited to where additional explanation is needed, specific targets and decision thresholds should be represented directly within Exhibit B. We recommend the FEIS incorporate and differentiate between implementation and effectiveness monitoring. For example, for greenhouse gas emissions, concurrence with the "trip bank" would be implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring would be establishing whether or not the selected alternative's predicted GHG reduction occurred ("...a net reduction of 4,164 metric tons/year. (DEIS, p. 1-10)). For stormwater, the development (or implementation) of a drainage master plan would be implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring could be establishing whether or not estimated reductions in pollution -generating impervious area within the Planned Action Study Area occurred (40.5 acres for alternatives 2 and 3). Environmental performance type effectiveness monitoring could entail runoff volume/ flow measurements, basin cleanout measurements and/or chemical analyses. Predicted impacts — such as the GHG and impervious surface reductions referenced above - are disclosed throughout the DEIS and could inform mitigation targets/ effectiveness monitoring thresholds. Other opportunities for mitigation targets/ effectiveness monitoring thresholds could be informed by third party certifications — such as, Greenroads and LEED ND. All implementation and effectiveness monitoring should be designed to facilitate adaptive management. Section 4 (B) of the Draft Planned Action Ordinance (DEIS, Appendix C) both requires adaptive management and provides a timeframe. "This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed no later than five years from its effective date by the Environmental Review Committee to determine the continuing relevance of its assumptions and findings with respect to environmental conditions in the Planned Action area, the impacts of development, and required mitigation measures. Based upon this review, the City may propose amendments to this ordinance and/or may supplement or revise the Planned Action EIS." (DEIS, Volume II, Appendix C, p. 8) Facilitating the usefulness of Section 4 (B), as well as Exhibit (B) (See mitigation comments), should be a primary focus of HIS revisions and additions. QFdMsarfweY~F*W k. 8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rating System for Draft Environmental Impact Statements Definitions and Follow -Up Action* EnvironMgntal IMMIX ction LO — Lack of Objections The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review has not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal. EC — Environmental Concerns EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitigation measures that can reduce these impacts. EO -- Environmental Objections EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to provide adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no -action alternative or a new alternative). EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. EU — Environmentally Unsatisfactory EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potential unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS stage, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Adeouagy of the Impact Statement Category 1—Adequate EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative and those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis of data collection is necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information. Category Z — Insufficient Information The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternatives that are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional information, data, analyses or discussion should be included in the final EIS. Category 3 — Inadequate EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of the action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are of such a magnitude that they should have full puhlic review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ. * From EPA Manual 1640 Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions Impacting the Environment. February, 1987 lopdabdarnagg 0"W Chapter 6 Coordination and Consultation with Agencies and Tribes The City of Renton (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. Correspondence includes the following found in Appendix J of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): • letter regarding potential Area of Potential Effects to the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, September 1, 2010; email and letter from DAHP, dated November 18, 2010, concurring with Cultural Resources Survey Report conclusions on eligibility; and • letter from DAHP concurring with conclusions of no adverse impacts, dated November 30, 2010. In addition, the City initiated the following consultation with agencies and tribes on three particular sites within the study area that may be locations for replacement housing for Sunset Terrace or other RHA activities as part of the Preferred Alternative (Final EIS Appendix F): • letter requesting consultation along with technical report, February 18, 2011; and • correspondence from DAHP, dated February 24, 2011, concurring with Cultural Resources Survey Report conclusions on eligibility and no adverse impacts. 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 has been prepared and submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service 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. Other federal and state agencies were also notified of comment opportunities through the scoping process identified in Draft EIS Appendix A and were offered comment opportunity on the Draft EIS (see Draft EIS Chapter 7 and Final EIS Chapter 8 for the distribution list). Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5 1 ICF 543.10 Chapter 7 List of Preparers This section lists the names, expertise, experience, and professional disciplines of the persons who were primarily responsible for preparing the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements including technical reports in the appendices. Expertise, Experience, and Name Education Professional Disciplines Atchison, MS, Water Resources Engineering, Dustin University of Wisconsin—Madison, 2004 BS, Civil Engineering, University of Washington, 1997 Cerise, Gilbert MPA, Public Administration, Columbia University,1994 BA, Political Science, University of Washington, 1991 Chang, Rachel MS, Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, 1991 BS, Biomedical Engineering, University of Southern California, 1989 Chung, BS, Civil Engineering, University of Raymond Washington, 1997 Dawson, Karen Degrees from Oregon State University: MS, Civil Engineering, 1990 BS, Civil Engineering, 1986 BS, Forest Engineering, 1986 Earle, PhD, Forest Ecology, University of Christopher Washington, 1993 MS, Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, 1986 BA, Biology and Geology, Whitman College, 1978 Elder, J. Tait MA, Archaeology, Portland State University, 2010 BA, Anthropology with a Minor in Geology, Western Washington University, 2004 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 1 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement Role: drainage master plan; water resources analysis lead Experience: 13 years Professional disciplines: civil engineering, water resources, stormwater, low -impact development, stream restoration Role: land use and public services analysis Experience: 15 years Professional disciplines: land use planning, environmental documentation Role: environmental health analysis Experience: 19 years Professional disciplines: hazardous materials, environmental engineering Role: drainage master plan; water resources analysis Experience: 13 years Professional discipline: water resources Role: earth analysis Experience: 20 years Professional discipline: geotechnical Role: plants and animals analysis Experience: 17 years Professional disciplines: ESA issues, watershed analysis, water quality, and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem evaluation and restoration Role: principal investigator for archaeology Experience: 5 years Professional discipline: prehistoric archaeologist April 2011 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 7. List of Preparers McKenzie, John BS, Civil Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1991 Sunset Area Community Planned Action z Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement Experience: 27 years Professional disciplines: Professional engineer Rale: SR 900 design; transportation analysis Experience: 18 years Professional disciplines: transportation engineering, site civil engineering, channelization, urban corridors, access management, sustainable practices in roadway engineering, cost estimating April 2011 ICF 593.10 Expertise, Experience, and Name Education Professional Disciplines Evanoff, MS, Engineering, University of Role: parks and recreation analysis Kristina Washington, 2006 Experience: 8 years BS, Geography, University of Utah, 2000 Professional disciplines: transit and BS, Environmental Studies, University transportation planning, public of Utah, 2000 involvement, environmental documentation, and GIS Gifford, Kevin MUP, Urban Planning, Texas A&M Role: aesthetics analysis, GIS mapping University, 2006 Experience: 5 years Bachelor of Environmental Design, Professional disciplines: land use planning, Texas A&M University, 2004 urban design, environmental permitting Grueter, Lisa MCP, City Planning, University of Role: EIS lead, housing California, Berkeley, 1990 Experience: 23 years BA, Social Ecology, University of Professional disciplines: land use planning, California, Irvine, 1987 environmental documentation Henke, Jennifer MS, Civil Engineering, University of Role: utilities analysis Texas at Austin, 1997 Experience: 13 years BS Civil Engineering, University of Professional disciplines: water supply and Texas at Austin, 1995 treatment, hydraulic modeling and analysis Hetzel, MA, Public History and Historic Role: cultural resources lead, historic Christopher Preservation, Middle Tennessee State resources analysis University, 1998 Experience: 14 years BA, History, Washington University, St. Professional disciplines: historic Louis—Minors in Archaeology and Art preservation, architectural history, and History, 1994 preservation planning Kuo, Kai -Ling MS, Civil & Environmental Engineering, Role: air quality, energy, and noise analyses University of Wisconsin, Madison, 2001 Experience: 8 years BS, Civil Engineering, National Taiwan Professional disciplines: air and noise University, Taipei, Taiwan, 199E engineer, transportation planner Mason, Roger AAS, Applied Science, Boise State Role: project manager, transportation University 1976 engineer McKenzie, John BS, Civil Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1991 Sunset Area Community Planned Action z Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement Experience: 27 years Professional disciplines: Professional engineer Rale: SR 900 design; transportation analysis Experience: 18 years Professional disciplines: transportation engineering, site civil engineering, channelization, urban corridors, access management, sustainable practices in roadway engineering, cost estimating April 2011 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 7. List of Preparers Expertise, Experience, and Name Education Professional Disciplines Petersen, Gene BA, Urban Planning, University of Role: utilities peer review, parks and Washington, 1975 recreation peer review BA, Sociology, University of Experience: 35 years Washington, 1976 Professional disciplines: SEPA/NEPA, environmental planning, resource planning, infrastructure planning Rodland, Rob BA, Geography, University of Role: socioeconomics and environmental Washington, 2000 justice analysis Experience: 10 years Professional disciplines: land use, social, environmental justice Wilder, Jim MS, Environmental Engineering, Role: peer review air quality, energy, and University of Washington, 1981 noise analysis BS, Civil Engineering, University of Experience: 35 years California, Davis, 1975 Professional discipline: environmental/air and noise engineer Yuen, Terry BS, Civil Engineering, University of Role: transportation analysis Washington, 1998 Experience: 11 years Professional discipline: professional engineer Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SE PA Environmental Impact Statement 3 ICF 593.10 Chapter S Distribution List The notice of availability for this Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was provided to the following agencies and individuals. Agencies indicated with an asterisk (*) were provided a paper or electronic copy of the Final EIS. 8.1 Federal, State, Tribal, Regional, County and City Agencies 8.1.1 Federal Agencies Advisory Council on Historic Preservation* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers* U.S. Department of Interior* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service* U.S. Housing and Urban Development* 8.1.2 State of Washington Agencies Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Department of Commerce* Department of Corrections* Department of Ecology* Department of Fish and Wildlife* Department of Health, Environmental Health* Department of Natural Resources* Department of Social and Health Services* Department of "Transportation, Northwest Region* Governor Chris Gregoire* Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement $ 1 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Parks and Recreation Commission* Puget Sound Partnership* Recreation and Conservation Office* 8.1.3 Tribal Duwamish Tribal Office Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program* 8.1.4 Regional Puget Sound Clean Air Agency* Puget Sound Regional Council* 8.1.5 Counties King County Development & Environmental Services King County Wastewater Treatment Division* King County Library System* Seattle -King County Public Health* 8.1.6 Cities City of Newcastle City of Kent City of Tukwila 8.1.7 Local Agencies Renton Housing Authority* Renton Historical Society Chapter 8. Distribution List 8.2 Special Districts, Transportation, and Utilities Renton School District* Metro Transit* Seattle Public Utilities Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 8 z IGF 593.10 City of Renton Puget Sound Energy* Sound Transit* 8.3 Newspapers Renton Reporter Seattle Times 8.4 Residents and Property owners Chapter S. Distrihution List The City of Renton (City) published a notice of availability of the Draft EIS in the Renton Reporter. In addition, the City notified its interested parties list, which includes participants in the scoping meeting as well as those who responded to the scoping postcard. Notices of availability have been posted throughout the Sunset Area Community, including at major intersections, in community buildings, and in commercial areas. The notice of availability of the Final EIS was sent to the same mailing list, including any Draft EIS commenters (see Chapter 5). Copies of the Draft and Final EIS have been made available for public review at the following locations: Renton Public Library (both Downtown and Highlands branches), Renton Housing Authority, Renton City Hall, and the City's website (as described on the Fact Sheet). Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement I[F 59110 Chapter 9 References and Acronyms 9.1 References 9.1.1 Chapter 1 City of Renton. 2010a. City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. February. Appendix D, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Standards. .2010b. Docket #53 Staff Report. September 29. . 2009a. Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan. May .2009b. Long Range Wastewater Management Plan. January. King County. 2009. Draft2009 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Seattle, WA. Prepared by King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. NW Energy Start Homes Program. Available: <http://www.northwestenergystar.com/>. Accessed: October 15, 2010. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2008. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Implementation Working Group: Report to the Climate Action Team. Appendix G. SEPA Mitigation Strategies for Climate Change Impacts 9.1.2 Chapter 2 Printed References City of Renton. 2010a. Renton Highlands (Sunset Area). Available: <http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=2768>. Accessed: September 20, 2010. 1. 2010b. Adopted Budget. 2010 Capital Investment Program: 2010 through 2015. Available: <http://rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Government/FIS/Financia]Documents/Budget/201OAdo ptedBudget.pdf>. Accessed: September 20, 2010. 2010c. Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. 2009a. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 9: Land Use Element. Adopted [November 1, 2004. Ordinance 5099 & 5100. Amended December 8, 2008. Renton, WA. . 2009b. Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy. November 18, 2009. Prepared by Mithun, Inc. on behalf of the City of Renton Community and Economic Development Department. .2009c. Highlands Action Plan. February. .2009d- Renton Trails and Bicycle Muster Plan_ May Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 9 1 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 9. References and Acronyms .2008a. Report and Recommendations. Highlands Phase II Task Force. December. Adopted by Renton City Council in 2009. Available: <http://www.rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=10946>. Accessed: September 20, 2010. .2008b. Economic Equality and Housing Briefing: Answers to Preliminary Briefing Questions. Highlands Phase 11 Task Force. July 2. Available: <http://www.rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Business/EDNSP/planning/Highlands%20Economi c%20Equal ity%20Study%20Questions%20web%20draft.pdf>. Accessed: September 20, 2010. .2008c. Business Area Study Session: Answers to Preliminary Study Questions. Highlands Phase l] Task Force. August 20, 2008. Available: <http://www.rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Business/EDNSP/planning/Business%20Areas°/02 OStudy%20Questions.pdf> Accessed: September 20, 2010. .2006. Report and Recommendation of the Highlands Area Citizen's Zoning Task Force. November. Adopted by Renton City Council in May 2007. City of Renton and Renton Housing Authority. 2009. Highlands Redevelopment: Presentation to the City of Renton. April 7. King County. 2009. King County Surface Water Design Manual. Updated September 13, 2010. Available: <http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/waterandland/stormwater/documents/surface- water-design-manual.aspx>. Accessed: September 15, 2010. Renton Housing Authority, 2010a. Welcome to the Renton Housing Authority. Available: <http://www.rentonhousing.org/>. Last updated: September 18, 2010. Accessed: September 20, 2010. . 2010b. RHA Communities Waidists. Available: <http://www.rentonhousing.org/RHA%20Communities%2OWaitlists.pdf> Accessed: September 20, 2010. .2010c. Tenant Demographic Data Report. Housing Authority, City of Renton. September 22. Renton, WA. Renton School District and Greene Gasaway Architects. 2008. Renton School District Six -Year Capital . Facilities Plan, 2009--2015. Renton, WA. Prepared for Renton School District, Renton, WA. Personal Communications Gropper, Mark Executive Director. Renton Housing Authority, Renton, Washington. September 17, 2010—email regarding Sunset Terrace income to Lisa Grueter, ICF International. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 9 2 3CF 593.10 City of Renton 9.1.3 Chapter 3 Chapter 9. References and Acronyms City of Renton. 2010. Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Gersib, R., B. Haddaway, T. Hilliard, E. Molash, J. Park, A. Perez, R. Schanz, and V. Stone. 2004. Enhancing Transportation Project Delivery through Watershed Characterization, 1-405 Case Study. WSDOT Urban Corridors Office, Seattle, WA, King County. 2009. King County Washington, Surface Water Design Manual. Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle, WA. Puget Sound Regional Council. 2010. Covered Employment Estimates. Available: <http://www.psrc.org/data/employment/covered-emp>. Accessed: September 15, 2010. 2009. Vision 2040. December. Available: <http://psrc.org/growth/visionZ040/pub/vision2040-document. Accessed November 27, 2010. Tabor, R. A., H. A. Gearns, C. M. McCoy III and S. Camacho. 2006. Nearshore Habitat Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in Lentic Systems of the Lake Washington Basin. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, WA. Worthy and Associates. 2009. Renton Urban and Community Forestry Redevelopment Plan. Seattle, WA. Prepared for City of Renton, WA. 9.1.4 Chapter 4 Gersib, R., B. Haddaway, T. Hilliard, E. Molash, J. Park, A. Perez, R. Schanz, and V. Stone. 2004. Enhancing Transportation Project Delivery through Watershed Characterization, 1-405 Case Study. WSDOT Urban Corridors Office, Seattle, WA. King County. 2010. Metro Transit. Available: <http://metro.kingcounty.gov>. Accessed: October 2010. . 2009. King County Washington, Surface Water Design Manual. Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle, WA. King County and City of Renton. 2001. Final Adopted May Creek Basin Action Plan. April. Updated September 14, 2010. Available: <http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/watersheds/cedar- river-lake-wa/may-creek/may-creek-basin-plan.aspx>. Accessed: September 15, 2010. StreamNet. 2010. Results of a database search for fish occurrence in May Creek and Honey Creek, King County, Washington. Available: <http://www.streamnet.org>. Accessed: September 15, 2010, Tabor, R. A., H. A. Gearns, C. M. McCoy III and S. Camacho. 2006. Nearshore Habitat Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in Lentic Systems of the Lake Washington Basin. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, WA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. National Wetlands Inventory. Available: <http://www.fws.gov/wetlands>. Last updated: November 3, 2010. Accessed; November 8, 2010. Sunset Area Community Planned Acton 9-3 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 9. References and Acronyms Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010b. Salmonscape database. Electronic online database files detailing salmon occurrence in Washington State. Available: <http://wdfvv.wa.gov/mapping/salmons cape>. Accessed: November 8, 2010. 9.1.5 Chapter 5 Printed References Book, Ed, and Richard Schneider. 2010. Crime prevention through environmental design: DPTED 40 years later. The Police Chief LXXVII(1). Association of Chiefs of Police, Alexandria, VA. Available: <http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm7fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=198 7&issue id=12010. Freedman, Matthew, and Emily Owens. 2010. "Low -Income Housing Development and Crime" in The Selected Works of Matthew Freedman. Available at: <http://works.bepress.com/matthew- freedman/12>. King County Library System. 2010. Draft 2010 Library Service Area Analysis Greater Renton Area. September. Persona! Communications Gropper, Mark. Executive Director, Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. February 22, 2011— email to Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner, ICF International, regarding Citizen Comments related to Edmonds -Glenwood. Sullivan, Arthur. February 2, 2011—teleconference with Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner, ICF International, 9.1.6 Chapter 6 No references 9.1.7 Chapter 7 No references 9.1.8 Chapter 8 No references Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 9 4 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 9. References and Acronyms 9.2 Acronyms ACM asbestos -containing materials ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADD average daily demand ARCH A Regional Coalition for Housing AWSC all -way stop control BMPs best management practices Btu British thermal unit CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIS Community Investment Strategy City City of Renton CN Center Neighborhood CV Center Village DAHP Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation DART Dial -a -Ride -Transit du/acre dwelling units per acre Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EIS environmental impact statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FTEs full-time equivalents GHG greenhouse gas HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development LID Low Impact Development LOS level of service MTCA Model Toxics Control Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NO[ Notice of Intent NRHP National Register of Historic Places OWSC one-way stop control PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls PDD peak daily demand PSCAA Puget Sound Clean Air Agency R-10 Residential 10 R-14 Residential 14 R-8 Residential 8 RCW Revised Code of Washington RHA Renton Housing Authority RMC Renton Municipal Code RM -F Residential Multifamily RS Residential Single Family SEPA State Environmental Policy Act Sunset Area Community Planned Action 9-5 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton SR State Route SRI Shelter Resources, Inc. STC sound transmission class TOD transit -oriented development USC United States Code UST underground storage tank VMC Valley Medical Center VMT vehicle miles travelled WAC Washington Administrative Code WHR Washington Heritage Register WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 9_S Chapter 9. References and Acronyms April 2011 ICF 593.10 R SUNSET AREA COMMUNITY PLANNED ACTION FINAL NEPA/SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT • VOLUME:2 • APRIL 201 Mimi Li 'Pill #:, If ssued by: City of Renton - EPA Responsible Entity and EPA Lead Agency Prepared in partnership with: Menton Housing Authority 00 :-� ��•:,�;: ,x:;�. �-a:��-art: ��-..�,�,��. 1 ENTON. AHEAD OF THE CuRdE of en on Community & Economic Development Appendix A Preferred Alternative Evaluation Planned Action Goals and Objectives and LEED ND Qualitative Review Appendix A-1 Preferred Alternative Evaluation: Goals & Objectives Sunset Area Community Planned Action Overview The environmental impact statement (EIS) addresses the Sunset Area Community Planned Action, which includes redevelopment of RHA's Sunset Terrace public housing community and associated neighborhood growth and revitalization (proposal). The proposal goals and objectives below guided the preparation of the EIS alternatives as described in Final EIS Chapter 2. The consistency of the Preferred Alternative with these goals and objectives is evaluated below. Planned Action Study Area Goals and Objectives Transformation of private and public properties in the Planned Action Study Area (see Chapter 2, Figures 2-1 and 2-4) is expected to meet the Sunset Area Community vision, as expressed in the Highlands Phase 11 Task Force Recommendations' and the Community Investment Strategy. z r • The Highlands is a destination for the rest of the city and beyond. • The neighbors and businesses here are engaged and involved in the community. • Neighborhood places are interconnected and walkable. • The neighborhood feels safe and secure. • Neighborhood growth and development is managed in a way that preserves quality of life. • The neighborhood is an attractive place to live and conduct business. • The neighborhood is affordable to many incomes. • The neighborhood celebrates cultural and ethnic diversity. Evaluation: The elements of the Preferred Alternative implement the Community Investment Strategy developed by neighbors and businesses. The Preferred Alternative would enhance the SunsetArea Planned Action Study Area as a destination by creating a multi -modal NE Sunset Boulevard with landscaping, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle amenities; enhancing neighborhood streets to serve as Green Connections for improved pedestrian environments as well as water quality; and redeveloping Sunset Terrace as a mixed use, mixed income development with attractive features for the broader Highlands community, including a relocated and larger library at Harrington Avenue NE and NE Sunset Boulevard, a "central park," and public plaza. ' City of Renton. 2008. Report and Recommendations: Highlands Phase 11 Task Force. December. Adopted by Renton City Council in 2009. Available: <http://www.rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=10946. Accessed: September 20, 2010. i City of Renton. 2009. SunsetArea Community Investment Strategy. November 18, 2009. Prepared by Mithun, Inc. on behalf of the City of Renton Community and Economic Development Department. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final MEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement A 1 1 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Appendix A-1 Public investments described above are intended to spur private reinvestment in the neighborhood that is integrated and managed according to City standards for design intending to create an attractive place to live and conduct business. The Preferred Alternative includes a range of housing styles - single family, townhomes, and flats -- that would meet the needs of a range of households. Some housing would be public, affordable, and/or market rate. Sunset Terrace redevelopment as well as the family village will be models and catalysts for private investment in housing at all income levels and serving a diverse population. For each of the major components of the proposal, the following specific goals and objectives were developed to be consistent with this vision. 1. Through designation of a Planned Action and infrastructure investments, support and stimulate public and private development. Evaluation: The Preferred Alternative includes adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance and infrastructure investments including NE Sunset Boulevard complete street improvements, green infrastructure developed according to a drainage master plan, parks and recreation space, and water and sewer system upgrades. The level of investment is the highest evaluated in the EIS Alternatives and the corresponding level ofgrowth is very similar to the upper bookend ofgrowth evaluated (within 7% of the maximum). 2. Ensure that redevelopment is planned to conform to the City s Comprehensive Plan. Evaluation: The redevelopment will conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan land use map and zoning. Consistency amendments in terms of capital facilities improvements would be adopted at the time of the Planned Action Ordinance. Through the Planned Action and early environmental review, accelerate the transformation of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with mixed -income housing and mixed uses together with places for community gathering. This will also be accomplished in part by using this EIS to achieve a NEPA Record of Decision, which will enable RHA to submit a HUD Demolition and Disposition application in 2011. Evaluation: The Preferred Alternative includes adoption of a SEPA Planned Action Ordinance and site- specific NEPA review of the Sunset Terrace public housing community's redevelopment into a mixed income, mixed use place with community amenities, with a NEPA Record of Decision anticipated by mid 2011. 4. Ensure that the Planned Action covers environmental review of Sunset Area roadway, drainage, parks and recreation, and other infrastructure improvements, and analyze impacts of anticipated private development in addition to Sunset Terrace. Evaluation: The Planned Action EIS evaluates improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard, stormwater improvements, parks and recreation facilities and needs, water and sewer, and a range of public services. 5. Build on previous City, RHA, and Renton School District efforts and current projects. Leverage relationships and partner with existing community outreach activities and resources. Recognize community desires documented in: Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement A-1-2 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Appendix A-1 o Report and Recommendation of the Highlands Area Citizen's Zoning Task Force (City of Renton 2006), o Report and Recommendation of the Highlands Phase II Task Force (City of Renton 2008a), o Highlands Action Plan (City of Renton 2009c), o SunsetArea Community Investment Strategy (City of Renton 2009b), o Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan (City of Renton 2009d), o Renton Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan (estimated completion date September 2011), o Utility system plans, and o Library replacement (in process). Evaluation: Task Force and other City plans farmed the basis for the proposals studied in the EIS and included in the Preferred Alternative, such as NE Sunset Boulevard multimodal improvements, green infrastructure improvements, water and sewer upgrades, library relocation, and other features The City, RHA, and the Renton School District have coordinated on the planning for the study area, including the family village. The results of the City's parks, recreation, open space, and natural resources planning, including public outreach and inventory information has been shared with other City departments and the EIS consultant team; City park level of service standards were considered in the enlarged central park included in the Sunset Terrace redevelopment concepts. 6. Create a Great Street3 on NE Sunset Boulevard, as described in the CIS. Implement the City Complete Streets policy for the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor and the Sunset Area Green Connections.4 Extend conceptual design of improvements between the Interstate 405 limited access right-of-way and Monroe Avenue NE, and include them in the Planned Action effort. Evaluation: The Preferred Alternative would comply with the City Complete Streets standards for NE Sunset Boulevard. In one location, the City would consider an exception, allowed with City decision - maker approval, where there is an existing wall between Edmonds Avenue NE and Harrington Avenue NE. At this constrained location, the Preferred Alternative would keep the existing curb and 5 -foot -wide sidewalk (no planter) and right-of-way would be acquired from the north side (Sunset Terrace) up to 14 feel" East of 10th Street NE, there appears to be sufficient right-of-way width along NESunset Boulevard to accommodate the Complete Street cross section. 7. Encourage low -impact stormwater management methods and areawide solutions as part of a master drainage plan to support development. Evaluation: The Preferred Alternative includesgreen infrastructure and the development of a master drainage plan. Several residential streets (designated as Green Connections) in the neighborhood 3 A "Great Street" has numerous characteristics, including: accommodating multiple motorized and nonmotorized modes, exhibiting quality urban design and architecture, offering a variety of interesting activities and uses, promoting environmental sustainability, and incorporating design elements that facilitate maintenance. The CIS suggests that the NE Sunset Boulevard "[i]mprovements would create a gateway and sense of place for the area, as well as enhanced pedestrian safety through traffic calming using improved crossings and landscaped medians." 4 The term "green connections" refers to public stormwater facility development serving desired new private development as well as public facilities and rights-of-way per the CIS. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement A-1-3 1CF 553.10 City of Renton Appendix A-1 would be transformed to improve pedestrian mobility, mitigate stormwater (both far water quality and flow reduction), and create an inviting corridor to enhance the neighborhood. Harrington Avenue NE, including portions of NE 16th and NE 9th streets, has been identified as a high prioritygreen connection project that would provide enhanced pedestrian connectivity between Hillcrest Terrace, McKnight Middle School, Sunset Terrace (including the relocated King County Library), Highlands Elementary, and Highlands Community Center: This corridor would be enhanced by narrowing through -traffic lanes to calm traffic, create wide planter areas to accommodate large trees and rain gardens to mitigate stormwater runof, and create wider sidewalks. This project would be implemented as a public infrastructure retrofit project pending available funds. The remaining Green Connections projects would likely be implemented as revised roadway standards to require incremental redevelopment of the frontage as redevelopment occurs (constructed either by future developers or the City, depending on availability of funds). In addition to the Green Connections projects, the City will implement regional detention/retention improvements to provide advance mitigation for future increases in impervious area that could result from redevelopment Locations of the regional facilities could include the western margin of the newly created park atSunset Terrace and/or the northern corner of Highlands Park (beyond the outfield of the existing baseball/softball field). The use of flow control BMPs and other low impact development standards would be implemented where feasible and allowed by the City in accordance with City surface water design standards and other standards. The regional detention/retention improvements and Green Connections funding is dependent upon the City obtaining grants from various sources and the availability of City funds. There also is the option that the Green Connections and the regional detention/retention improvements could be funded as part of the redevelopment projects. 8. Engage the community in a transparent process using available outreach opportunities and tools successfully used in prior planning efforts. Evaluation: The Preferred Alternative was developed following public review of the Draft EIS alternatives atpublic meetings. Additional public comment opportunities occurred within a 45 -day Draft EIS commentperiod extending from December 17, 2010, to January 31, 2011. Following direct mail and posting of notices, RHA held a meeting for Sunset Terrace residents on January 4, 2011, at which more than 25 participants attended. After mailing postcards in English and Spanish, posting notices, and publishing notice in the City's local newspaper, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission at Renton City Hall on January 5, 2011, at which eight persons spoke. During the 45 -day comment period 12 pieces of correspondence were received. Please see Chapter 5 of this Final ElSfor more information about the comments and responses. 9. Optimize funding strategies by leveraging partnerships, innovation and sustainable development for a healthy community. Recognize the importance and timing of integrating housing, transportation, infrastructure, expanded economic opportunity, parks and recreation, and the environment. Evaluation: The Preferred Alternative depends on a partnership between the City, RHA, the Renton School District and others, and these agencies have been coordinating through this process to ensure that investments are leveraged. The Preferred Alternative integrates housing, transportation, parks and recreation, infrastructure, and environmental benefits and mitigation to create opportunities for economic and housinggrowth in the community. Sunset Area Community Planned Action A-1-4 April 2411 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Appendix A-1 As well as being a key part of the overall Planned Action Study Area revitalization strategy, the Sunset Terrace redevelopment is intended to meet the following goals and objectives. • Replace at a 1:1 ratio the existing 100 Sunset Terrace public housing units: 20 one -bedroom, 36 two-bedroom, 36 three-bedroom, and eight four-bedroom units. Some will be replaced on site and some off site within the Planned Action Study Area. • Provide new affordable and market -rate housing to accommodate a mixed -income community that includes the Sunset Terrace property and nearby RHA- or City -owned sites. • Maximize the visibility and location of the redevelopment as the heart of Sunset Area Community. • Act as a catalyst for improvements and investments in the Sunset Area Community. • integrate the Sunset Terrace site and residents with the surrounding neighborhood. • Provide amenities to be shared by the Sunset Area Community neighborhood and other Renton residents, employees, and visitors, including a "third place" for all to gather, and park and open space opportunities such as active recreation and community garden space. • Improve the pedestrian realm and connection across NE Sunset Boulevard. • Provide a mix of uses, including residential, open space, and potential for community, civic, retail, or commercial. Evaluation: The Preferred Alternative would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community into a mixed -income, mixed-use development according to a master plan, which features a "central" park of approximately 2.65 acres and a loop road. The existing 100 public housing units would be replaced at a 1 -to -1 ratio. Replacement of the public housing units would occur on the current public housing site and elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area. In particular, some potential sites for replacement housing include Sunset Court Park (as the park space would be relocated at Sunset Terrace), RHA -owned property along Kirkland Avenue NE, and the existing library site once it is relocated though another possible use for the library site would be for agency use (e.g. offices, maintenance). The Preferred Alternative would provide approximately 78% public and affordable, and 22% market - rate dwelling units. Housing styles would include flats in mixed-use and residential -only buildings and townhomes. It is expected that, with the Sunset Terrace property and associated properties owned or purchased by RHA, up to 266 additional new units could be created, would be public, affordable, and/or market rate. The total 376 dwellings would result in a density of approximately 33 units per acre. The Preferred Alternative would create a more prominent mixed use character. The central park and loop road would create a central feature for the development and the community, providing a sense of openness to the Sunset Terrace site. In addition, buildings on the site would be arranged to place 2 - story townhomes adjacent to the park and taller multifamily residential buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard. At NE Sunset Boulevard visible community features include a relocated library and mixed use commercial/community/residential buildings. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2411 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement A-1-5 3CF 593.10 City of Renton Appendix A-1 The Sunset Terrace redevelopment would act as a catalyst for the broader neighborhood as it would be located in a visually prominent area, be an example of a mixed use, mixed income development, and create a density and urban form that represents the vision of the Center Village designation. The Preferred Alternative Sunset Terrace redevelopment would be integrated into the community - it would add public features including a park and library for all broader Highlands residents, improve pedestrian connectivity with a loop public streetsystem and extension of Green Connections, and buildings would face NE Sunset Boulevard and invite residents to businesses and community facilities. Public amenities would be integrated with the residential development and could include the following: a central park including a vacated Harrington Avenue NE (at Sunset Lane NE), an elder day health center, a new public library along a Sunset Lane NE that would occasionally serve as an active plaza, commercial retail orservice space, and green infrastructure. The park and library/plaza as well as the central park could act as a "third place." The pedestrian realm would be enhanced by a network of complete streets, particularly NE Sunset Boulevard as well as the Green Connections, improved landscaping and street furniture, and more active civic and commercial uses, e.g. library and retail uses. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement A � ICF 593.10 u1 N r r r r rIt r r - N r N — r — W3 — r — — m — r — r u u u u u C _ N 7 Vf ✓� �n �n 0 4> a V ar cS S S S jp p o o p U 06q V u u u u u 0 � c c w c E E E E E 0 0 0 0 o e 'V ro m a d 0 a a 0 0 0 0 m _ a L u kC Of M m q c y g w a c 0 m A g 0 A y v u y n c c E't', a d d d E 4 v ro v _ c° a +' m 9 , m c d v3 m v m a d a w a a m d N q u c R a q p 7r x U V V U c c c w Z d top C C 7 Q1 i+ 3:C a aa+ 'n G L 4 V m M ate+ A A A w 'V^ ma:v e m °a3 y ., u dy� a o o co a" A q I vOp ➢p W�'�, m V 'N rr O'w dA �p d A V CCCCrE s s 0 0 0 0 t Ol33 GCCCCw u m m w ! N O no �j G I N J C C C C C J a Q• a a• N u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u v u E o z O z c z Y CL o v c v u wcuai w w v a m m rt ro a R C N G a c R. u y c 3 x d CL Ec 0 v ro c o v m m q N d y a E > A v g ti m E aNr c s p -Fo c E 0 y a m a 0 o a+ a Q b E u o E 0 E `0 c a w o E d va+i K c p o a v a a A c L C m O uG p +q+ u W d G d '�^ O 9 6 C V c 9 G b s y v c c m y c a Ti a E a E o `a W E v _° q 16 a d d a s d c c y t L q C N d d' 0 D O=_ 0 G O L d C UJ GI q W ih+ N y ° n v Q o c y 3 6° u° > b a} z E° E �' m o0 a m o d o E y a V N U oc 9 y O d' c .-. a a c c �, R y u c= y n° °—_ $ c O W 0 t' y '� V L G V dy 0 u ~ q Q a q G, U V N Qgp E J1 L q, D A a p 3 u s, O W Y C E .�4 Qi Qi �7 a c G a a a� 1d W pp p w E E m° ❑ o" p cr 1O a aj 0 1O a x k vi F� FL- a a a v F i o a LL a m u m x s„ a 3 u u$ u °or N V � N M Q I['I N M 4 41'1 O f� 00 O• r N r N 7 O n RJ C+ � r r r r Lu p N g v v v v$ y �' a v v-0 u v v v v v v v W L D W N 2! `I v WN W 4.l `I ` a `J Ll W N `J 2J `l N N y L `! J d a d a o d U U u u cu Vv U U d a a U u u u U u u u u U U u u cu u b z O i 0 v a u a v v a Appendix A-3 Preferred Alternative Evaluation: LEED for Neighborhood Development Design Elements Sunset Area Community Planned Action Introduction The purpose of this analysis is to provide a qualitative review of the proposed Sunset Area Community Planned Action including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in terms of the proposals' alignment with general principles of the Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) rating system for Neighborhood Development. The official 2009 LEED ND project scorecard published by the U.S. Green Building Council is used as a guide to address green design issues in relation to the proposed redevelopment. For each criteria group on the scorecard, a brief discussion of how the proposed redevelopment is consistent with the principles of LEED ND is provided. Smart Location and Linkage The intent of the Smart Location and Linkage criteria of the LEED ND rating system is to encourage development to occur within and near existing communities and established public transit infrastructure, as well as reduce vehicle trips. Development in smart locations also encourages a greater degree of walking of bicycling, which has personal health benefits. The Sunset Terrace site is located along a major transportation and transit corridor within the City of Renton. Redevelopment of the site under the Final EIS Preferred Alternative would create a mixed-use, mixed -income development already served by the full range of public services on a previously developed infill site on a major transit corridor, fully meeting the U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC's) definition of a "smart location," Multimodal improvements to Sunset Boulevard, including a multi -use trail, would also strengthen pedestrian and bicycle linkages to surrounding development, increasing resident access to neighborhood services and amenities. Neighborhood Pattern and Design The intent of the Neighborhood Pattern and Design criteria of the LEED ND rating system is to promote safe, diverse, walkable, compact neighborhoods with high-quality design with a mix of land uses. Redevelopment of Sunset Terrace as described in the Final EIS Preferred Alternative would increase the walkability of the area through improvements both to internal circulation paths and surrounding sidewalks and streetscapes. Redevelopment would transform the site to host a mix of retail, community service, recreational, and residential uses, which is encouraged by the LEED standards. Residential development would consist of mixed -income housing at a variety of densities, including both townhomes and flats. The Preferred Alternative would reduce parking requirements in the planned action study area and provide additional transit facilities, such as Sunset Area Community Planned Action A-3-1 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1cF593.1 City of Renton Appendix A-3 transit -priority lanes and bus shelters. Increased access to civic and public space would also be provided under the Preferred Alternative, which includes a central park on the Sunset Terrace site; a relocated library and a new community center would be located adjacent to the park. Green Infrastructure and Buildings The intent of the Green Infrastructure and Buildings criteria is to encourage development that implements green building practices or introduces green infrastructure. This includes using certified green building techniques, increasing building water and energy efficiency, controlling pollution from construction activities, implementing adaptive reuse of historic buildings, and using green methods of stormwater management. The Preferred Alternative would implement a number of these principles, both through project design and through mitigation measures included in this EIS. These would include: • Construction Emission Control: The Final EIS recommends that the City require all construction contractors to implement air quality control plans for construction activities in the study area, including measures for reducing engine emissions and fugitive dust. (See Draft EIS Section 4.2 and Final EIS Appendix E for additional detail.) • Green Connections for Stormwater Management: The Preferred Alternative would include public investment in Green Connections throughout the Planned Action Study Area. The exact form of these Green Connections would be determined in a drainage master plan for the study area. • Energy Efficiency: The Final EIS recommends that the City encourage or require implementation of energy and greenhouse gas reduction measures in the study area such as compliance with the Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes program and the Seattle Energy Code for non-residential buildings. (See Draft EIS Section 4.5 and Final EIS Chapter 1 and Appendix E for additional detail.) Sunset Area Community Planned Action A-3-2 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.1 Appendix B Land Capacity Analysis Appendix B Land Capacity Analysis Data and Assumptions The purpose of the land capacity analysis is to document the calculation of growth numbers for alternatives. The methodology identifies possible development and redevelopment opportunities, but ultimately the level of growth will be based on individual property owner decisions and market forces within the framework of City zoning and other development regulations. The methods rely on 2007 Buildable Lands spreadsheets provided by Michael Hubner of Suburban Cities Association and address vacant and redevelopable lands within the Sunset Area Community Planned Action Study Area. King County parcel data as of 2010 was used to prepare draft maps and identify parcels within the various zones that are categorized as vacant, redevelopable, and developed. In addition, King County data was used to eliminate other parcels from consideration in the buildable lands analysis, such as religious institutions, government or institutional facilities similar to the 2007 Buildable Lands analysis. However, Renton Housing Authority (RHA) parcels were not excluded. King County IMap and aerial photos were reviewed to verify status on parcels and to categorize parcels that did not have enough information in King County's data to assess a category. King County parcel data (2010) was also used to provide existing development figures such as dwelling units and commercial square footage, which were subtracted from redevelopable parcels. Summary of Land Capacity Findings Table 1 below provides a land capacity analysis broken into subareas. See Final EIS Figure 2-1 for a map of the subareas and Final EIS Figure 2-3 for a zoning map. The attached spreadsheet provides a breakdown of capacity by zoning districts. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement l3 1 ieF 593.10 City of Renton Table 1. Summary of Land Capacity — Net Additional Growth above Existing Appendix R Subarea Dwelling Alternative Alternative Alternative Preferred 3,430-3,442 Units/Jobs 1 21 3 Alternative Potential Sunset Dwelling units 168-1752 310 479 266 Terrace jobs 493 164 182 79-1178 Redevelopment 3,1928 Sunset Mixed Use Dwelling units 1,109 1,052 1,509 1,481 jobs 410-652 1,728 2,875 2,802 Central, North and Dwelling units 206 296 518 592 South jobs 152-213 273 273 273 Total Study Area Dwelling units4 1,483-1,490 1,658 2,506 2,339 Populations 3,430-3,442 3,830 5,789 5,403 Employment SF 251,700 844,351 1,310,113 1,247,444- 1,259,9448 jobs' 61.1-9147 2,165 3,330 3,154- 3,1928 1 The EIS technical analysis for transportation, water, and sewer models studied two more net units in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under Alternatives 1 and 3, and a slightly different mix of dwellings and jobs in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under Alternative 2 (12 more dwellings and 38 fewer jobs). These differences are negligible and represent a less than 2% difference across the Planned Action Study Area. 2 The lower range represents proposed concepts on RNA's two vacant sites based on funding applications. The upper range represents the results of a land capacity analysis. 3 The estimate is based on a 90%/10% housing/employment split between residential and service uses; the housing/employment share based on example proposed developments prepared for RHA's two vacant sites in the Sunset Terrace subarea. 4 Includes 217 dwellings and approximately 8 jobs associated with Harrington Square. The first building was constructed in Summer 2010, and the other is under construction to be completed in spring/summer 2011. 5 Applies an average household size of 2.3 1, an average of two census tracts 252 and 254. 6 Includes retail, service, and education jobs. The lower figure shown is based on a commercial employment rate of 400 square feet per employee for retail and service jobs. If applying a commercial employment rate of 250 square feet per employee, the employment would equal the upper range. This latter figure is more similar to Renton Transportation Zone assumptions. 8 The lower figure assumes less commercial/service space, whereas the higher includes more commercial/service space. The Final EIS studies the lower number of jobs (38 fewer) in the technical analysis for transportation, water, and sewer models though this is considered a negligible difference from the upper range (less than 2%) and is captured in the range of the EIS analysis for all alternatives. Alternative 1 reflects existing assumptions in the 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report as applied to the adopted zoning and Alternative 3 modifies some of the residential -commercial mix assumptions of the 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report and adds properties that could be redeveloped. These present the bookends. Alternative 2 represents moderate growth within the bookends, by refining Alternative 3 assumptions. The relationship of the land capacity assumptions to the bookends is addressed later in this memo. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement B-2 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Alternative 1 Appendix B Generally speaking, the existing buildable lands methodology developed by King County and the City of Renton was applied to 2010 King County parcel data to produce Alternative 1 figures for dwelling units and jobs. The 2007 Buildable Lands included the following assumptions for relevant zones listed in Table 2: Table 2. Alternative 1 Land Capacity Assumptions IV= Vacant, properties with an improvement value of less than $5000 R=Redevelopable Redevelopable - Single Family: Parcels with adequate acreage to accommodate future development Redevelopable - Multifamily and Commercial: Properties with an improvement to land value of less than 0.5 The land capacity analysis applied the assumptions to eligible properties as follows: • Vacant, redevelopable, and developed property classifications were generally consistent with the 2007 Buildable Lands assumptions. o Single-family residential methods were used for R-8 and R-10 zones o An assessment of improvement to land value of less than 0,5 was used for commercial and multifamily zones. o Parks, community centers, library, fire station, and churches were excluded from calculations. o The small parcels that make up the Walgreens site on Sunset Boulevard appeared as "vacant." These were corrected to "developed" category. o A handful of small access or associated parking parcels were also reclassified from "vacant" to "developed" based upon a review of an aerial and information contained in King County data. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/sEPA Environmental Impact Statement 6-3 ICF 593.10 Mixed -Use Assumed Assumed Assumed Future % Future Future FAR Residential- Market Residential (Non- % Public Factor Zone Densities Residential) Commercial ROW % Purpose % 1 R-8 6.64 N/A N/A 14.5% 11.5% V = 10%, R=15% R-10 8.44 N/A N/A 14.5% 11.S% V=10% R=15% R-14 12.34 N/A N/A 5% 5% V=10% R=15% RM -F 19.00 N/A N/A 2% 1% V=10% R=15% CN N/A 0.15 N/A 0% 0% V=10% R=15% CV 78.34 1.86 80%-20% 0% 0% V= 10% R=15% IV= Vacant, properties with an improvement value of less than $5000 R=Redevelopable Redevelopable - Single Family: Parcels with adequate acreage to accommodate future development Redevelopable - Multifamily and Commercial: Properties with an improvement to land value of less than 0.5 The land capacity analysis applied the assumptions to eligible properties as follows: • Vacant, redevelopable, and developed property classifications were generally consistent with the 2007 Buildable Lands assumptions. o Single-family residential methods were used for R-8 and R-10 zones o An assessment of improvement to land value of less than 0,5 was used for commercial and multifamily zones. o Parks, community centers, library, fire station, and churches were excluded from calculations. o The small parcels that make up the Walgreens site on Sunset Boulevard appeared as "vacant." These were corrected to "developed" category. o A handful of small access or associated parking parcels were also reclassified from "vacant" to "developed" based upon a review of an aerial and information contained in King County data. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/sEPA Environmental Impact Statement 6-3 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Appendix B • The Harrington Square project that is under construction is shown as a pipeline project with 217 dwelling units and 8 jobs (3,349 s.f. of commercial space divided by 400 s.f./employee found in buildable lands). Results were tabulated by subareas. See Table 1 for a breakdown by subarea and the attachment for a summary by zoning district. Alternative 3 For Alternative 3, the 2007 Buildable Lands methodology was adjusted to assume a greater level of redevelopment along the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor on the Center Village (CV) zoned parcels that were either categorized as redevelopable under Alternative 1 above, or newly categorized as redevelopable using two methods: 1) a review of King County parcel data on age of structures (1990 or earlier) and review of aerial data in relation to existing assumed redevelopable parcels; and 2) a draft methodology developed by the Suburban Cities Association that considers parcels with 25% of the assumed future floor area ratio and a structure age older than 1995. For purposes of Alternative 3, these parcels were called "CV2" and they were assumed to redevelop with a 50% commercial -50% residential mix in consideration of their orientation to Sunset Boulevard. A higher density redevelopment assumption was also applied in the R-14 zoned "family village" area identified in the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy (CIS), and for the current Highlands public library site recognizing possible density bonuses. For these parcels alone, density was assumed at 18 du/acre on the library site and 24 du/acre on the "family village" site. Also, the market factor was removed to account for a complete transformation of these sites. Additional detailed assumptions are described below. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea For the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, the Bumgardner Architecture Concept Master Plan (Final EIS Figure 2-10) was used to develop the total. • The number of dwelling units was included from the new development summary shown on Bumgardner's Sunset Terrace Redevelopment: Concept Master Plan. • Commercial building square footages were taken from the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment: Concept Master Plan and translated to jobs using the average of the City of Renton's Buildable Lands employees/square foot range of 250-400. The figure used for this calculation was approximately 325 employees/square foot. • Employment estimates using this process varies between 97 employees and 182 depending upon whether or not the 27,500 s.f. of community space is considered in the employment mix. North Subarea The "family village" redevelopment concept would, if implemented, redevelop RHA property and contiguous School District and City park properties located in the North Subarea (total of approximately 15 acres). Assumptions for this redevelopment included: Sunset Area community Planned Action B-4 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1[F 593.10 City of Renton Appendix B Apply 24du/acre in R-14 zone (considered a practical maximum for townhouse densities; allowed with density bonus provisions for affordable housing), Eliminate the market factor for this redevelopment since it is assumed to occur on this single parcel. Deduct approximately 3 acres of land as an estimate for education facility and park space in the redevelopment. Central Subarea The existing site of the Highlands Branch Public Library is expected to redevelop with housing once the library is moved to the redeveloped Sunset Terrace site. Assumptions for redevelopment of the library site (approximately 1.4 acres, when excluding the associated alley extending north of the library site) include: • Apply maximum 18 du/acre allowed in R-14 zone (allowed with density bonus provisions for affordable housing and community facilities), Eliminate the market factor for this redevelopment since it is assumed to occur on this single parcel. Alternative 2 and the Bookends Alternative 3 is considered to be an upper bookend for the analysis. It provides a best -case scenario for employment and residential growth. It captures a range of land use options included in the Renton Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy such as the Sunset Terrace redevelopment and the "family village" concept. Alternative 1 is considered to be a lower bookend. It recognizes more incremental infill redevelopment of vacant and selected properties that appear to have a combination of land and improvement values that could result in redevelopment that takes advantage of adopted zoning. Alternative 2 is a mid-range option that includes the following assumptions: a similar amount of redevelopable acreage as Alternative 3, excluding the family village concept and increasing the amount of acres that could be acquired for public parks and recreation • a lower intensity Sunset Terrace redevelopment, and • a reduced density and floor area ratio on remaining properties (e.g..a density in the range of the minimum and maximum 20-80 du/ac respectively, and a FAR of less than 2.86 — specifically an average density of approximately 69 dwellings per acre and an FAR of approximately 1.5). Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative is similar to Alternative 3 and also falls within the bookends noted above. Key changes to assumptions for the Preferred Alternative in comparison to Alternative 3 include: • A Iower intensity Sunset Terrace redevelopment that assumes additional open space in exchange for redevelopment of Sunset Court Park in the Central Subarea. This results in fewer new dwelling units and jobs than found in Alternative 3; • Redevelopment of Sunset Court Park parcel in the Central Subarea with 80 new dwelling units, as the open space on the existing park site is transferred to the Sunset Terrace Subarea; Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement B 5 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Appendix 8 Removing a 1.1 acre vacant parcel that is shown as a Native Growth Protection Easement from development capacity in the North Subarea, resulting in reduction of 6 dwelling units of capacity in that area; and Assuming about half of the previously assumed land capacity on the St. Vincent de Paul site in the Sunset Mixed -Use Subarea due to eligibility as a historic resource which may mean a future site design that avoids the structure resulting in lower dwelling units and employment assumptions within this Subarea. Attachment — Land Capacity by Zone Land capacity by zone is shown on the attached spreadsheets. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement B 6 ICF 593.10 C Q p 09 N N n N N 00 m O O (L] W F T A 1 m� f. NI O C G a �+ C o U@ O m O N N O m N UV> � O m tp N Op � O d G�m O a m N [p � 4 eA pqj C CLa M N7 0y T M Q m m Q N N a mOb [wi N � [V w y m � y� U m c ey a V 0 tO e0 N h eD b �p a �1 h Ir V tl 4] m N CO E N p N ffl 0! =J Ea Daco c a E O C RV >U >_Sxtlel m v c ji E Uo VCal p uQl 139 a Im It o K a co K oz y R y = U} u h _ E LL m o Q c o �_ E g U m 3 m N c R m m = Sv 3 m[ c m H n p r6 N C Ul Vi v ~ a y O N ill cn ~ v i m i y a C_ fd t m U i m -n m H C Q p 09 N N n N N 00 m O O (L] W F T A 1 m� f. NI O C G �+ U@ O m O N N O m N !fi ICj R mO a-} m CS p Op � O d G�m O a m {l m W _ d C m M N7 m P'S T Q m m N N n mOb [V w y� m c ey a V 0 tO e0 N h eD b �p a �1 h Ir V tl 4] _? J N N E v R O Ea Daco c a E O C RV >U >_Sxtlel m c ji E Uo VCal p uQl 139 a Im It o K a N oz o aam o w Q e E LL m o Q c o �_ E g m 7 c m R m z U m U Sv 3 m[ c m p rn fi C[ Ul Vi v m u C y O N E cn v V m u r= y N C_ t m x m m E x m _ Z c C �+ U@ O m O N N N !fi ICj R mO a-} m CS p A O a _ d w y� m c ey a V 0 tO e0 N h eD b �p a �1 h Ir V tl 4] _? J N N E R O Ea Daco > O C RV >U >_Sxtlel m c E Uo VCal p uQl 139 N Im K o N oz aam coEL H Z c Appendix C Potential Preferred Alternative Phasing and Variants of Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Conceptual Plans Similar to Preferred Alternative cL U ICD, r it I 3i F -' T '14. ITTIO DMultifamily: :Flats famil u Y Multifamily: Townhouses Civic/Community Services �\ Retail/Commercial/Mixed-Use Active park/open space j open Passive o ace 0' 200' 300' 400' N -� Passive open space: plaza Note: The central open space will be designed and programmed at a later date. Considerations would ® Existing buildings to remain include active and passive recreation, community gardens, and community gathering areas. Phasing MI T H U N Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Concept—Preferred Alternative Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS - 4e as VJ G C C ) � C L C - L a) 0.U O Q co ami a 0 --o �rCD m � •m -Fo z p c - o W N O (j) V) - am � C c � s o cn L L � � C C L al C1 E 0).0 0. C Q O Ci > X a) cll C 'p o a) O U CL Q7 � L4 L ` O a) O m � U U CI) @ C CD Q O r C � O a) .� " E s o E a') E 0 O U 0 Q AO Q U Sa E N > z W < ' p U Q a sz � O i N i 4- : acra- i U C a Li N N :3 U LU LL U C C O O C MU. N C/) O N (N 0r .. CD O CO H r C UI y t=ii m N r a1 CL V) O a C ro C/) V) O tf O CL c CC) CO (N N (D CO Q] aQC C ` Q U7 C CL N 0 E C � E N C111 (N CD QD C) C? co 0,7 E co LO C+) C'') C'7 'Kt r r r r r v L. n. 0 'C 00 O � O •x 00 r � C C6 O n� W L C a7 C1 ° Q ai -2 M ch CD L[) Sn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In U'i Ln C) CD co LL c„7 O CD N O Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 C7 O US N N N CD CD +d' o m C*) CD O CD C) CQ C) O 0 Ln CO m m C'7 co co If J �; C a) r_ CN V r . � Lo r Lli C4 I-� r• r-- r- LC) Ln O CU u) Elf�. O -r- Q 4) L (n CInI L� O C CU U u � U C] O a m Q E o U °' Qi o m N d d (N N �r 1* �r IT C6 c c� U C N N N N N a7 u u O _ ~ O O s U C CU UC/) ro O (( C � Q a a u) . cn = 2 m U) a Q N i d O E O U CD 4 y a a. ami N a) V) ai W a`�i aNi d 9 c o o D 0 0 o a o 01 � L C L C V) V? EnE CO E U) E E CL C o C 0 C 0 C 0 C o O H U O j 'C lL LL l% LL LL ? U Oo p Q)— z E E E E E E E 0 E E cEa E E LL CL _ x C x_ 0 NC'] �' lf) CL) ti � CA C) C r S6 � r Ln r r r F- - 4e as VJ G C C ) � C L C - L a) 0.U O Q co ami a 0 --o �rCD m � •m -Fo z p c - o W N O (j) V) - am � C c � s o cn L L � � C C L al C1 E 0).0 0. C Q O Ci > X a) cll C 'p o a) O U CL Q7 � L4 L ` O a) O m � U U CI) @ C CD Q O r C � O a) .� " E s o E a') E 0 O U 0 Q AO Q U Sa E N > z W < ' p U Q a sz � O i N i 4- : acra- i U C a Li N :3 U LU LL E O O U CO H t=ii a1 E V) O a C ro C/) V) tf O CL c U Q] aQC Q U7 C O N 0 E C � E � C � co � C v 'C 00 � O •x O r � C C6 O n� W L a7 C1 ° Q ai -2 O C U �l US C C} C U) U) U) NUl C o U �; C a) ° E r o ro a L } C CO C CU u) CU O -r- Q 4) L (n CInI L� O C CU U u b O a C] O a Q E o °' Qi o m E z E s= Z3 C - Zs > o C C6 c c� U C Q m L u u O _ ~ O s U C CU UC/) ro O (( C � Q a a u) . Adjusted setbacks at library and building 10 ig Diagram, NTS nes • Adjusted library footprint • 10,000 sf footprint for Building 10 • On -street parking provided on Sunset Lane east of Harrington: 25 stalls • Off-street parking provided: 49 stalls (31 at library; 18 at bldg 10) • Total parking provided: 74 stalls (asssumes 1 level of underground parking) • Parking required: Total: 101 stalls: Library (45 stalls), Building 10 (56 stalls, assuming 30 units 36stalls + 1 OK office = 20 stalls) does not include shared parking or other reductions • Park area: 2.4 acres Sunset Area Planned Action EIS EIS: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area Studies 2110111 Note: Sound Attenuation numbers are reversed east and west of Harrington Avenue NE - should be 65 and 70 feet respectively MITHUH m, NTS Parcel lines 6O0146P-T — /L 1"_= 40' 9F'�'b f41 Concept 2 Sunset Lane jog • Adjusted library footprint • New Building 10 configuration: 15,000 sf footprint • Shared access underground parking (one level) accessed from 10th Street • Plaza/3rd place/ drop off area • On -street parking provided on Sunset Lane east of Harrington: 25 stalls • Off-street parking provided: 61 stalls (39 at library; 10 at plaza; 22 at bldg 10) • Total parking provided: 86 stalls (assumes 1 level underground parking) • Parking required: Total: 132 stalls: Library (45 stalls), Building 10 (87 stalls, assuming 45 units = 54 stalls + 1 OK office = 20 stalls, 5K retail = 13 stalls) does not include shared parking or other reductions • Park area: 2.1 acres Sunset Area Planned Action EIS EIS: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area Studies 2/10/11 Note: Sound Attenuation numbers are reversed east and west of Harrington Avenue NE - should be 65 and 70 feet respectively. M I T H U N r 1 4T If�tl '' Parking Diagram, NTS Y� �� Parcel lines Concept 3 Realigned Sunset Lane • Sunset Lane realigned north to accomodate 120' deep building and double loaded parking ga- rage • Adjusted library footprint • New Building 10 configuration: 15,000 sf footprint • Shared access underground parking (one level) accessed from 10th Street • Plaza/3rd place • On -street parking provided on Sunset Lane east of Harrington: 23 stalls • Off-street parking provided: 116 stalls (shared parking garage podium) • Total parking provided: 136 stalls • Parking required: Total: 132 stalls: Library (45 stalls), Building 10 (87 stalls, assuming 45 units = 54 stalls + 1 OK office = 20 stalls, 5K retail = 13 stalls) does not include shared parking or other reductions • Park area: 2.3 acres Sunset Area Planned Action EIS EIS: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area Studies 2110111 Note: Sound Attenuation numbers are reversed �.. east and west of Harrington Avenue NE - should be 65 and 70 feet respectively. M I T H U H Appendix D Hillcrest Worksession Creative opportunities for a healthy, intergenerational community SUNSET AREA: HILLCREST WORKSESSION NOVEMBER 22, 2010 Prepared by Mithun, Inc, SUNSET AREA HILLCREST WORKSESSION REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Acknowledgements II. Purpose and Background III. Partner Updates and Activities IV. Worksession Summary: Hillcrest Guiding Principles Program Elements Program and Operations Partnering Opportunities Site and Infrastructure Opportunities APPENDICES Precedents: Learning and Family Development Centers New Holly Neighborhood Campus Neighborhood House's High Point Center Gladstone Center for Families and Children Worksession Agenda Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession rl �� E�ySOu NOUSI,yC MITHUN LdntonMM Page 3 of 20 SCHOOL OiSTRICT ^ur��oanv I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to the Worksession Participants: Terry Higashiyama City of Renton, Community Services, Administrator Alex Pietsch City of Renton, Community & Economic Development, Administrator Leslie Betlach City of Renton, Community Services, Parks Planning and Natural Resources Chris Webb Director Kelly Beymer City of Renton, Community Services, Parks and Golf Course Director Suzanne Dale Estey City of Renton, Community & Economic Development, Economic Development Director Chip Vincent City of Renton, Community & Economic Development, Planning Director Todd Black City of Renton, Community Services, Capital Projects Coordinator Erika Conkling City of Renton, Community & Economic Development, Senior Planner Mark Santos -Johnson City of Renton, Community & Economic Development, Senior Economic Development Specialist Rocale Timmons City of Renton, Community & Economic Development, Associate Planner Randy Matheson Renton School District, Executive Director, Community Relations Rick Stracke Renton School District, Executive Director, Facilities & Operations Doug DuCharme BLRB Architects Calvin Gasaway Greene Gasaway Architects Brad Medrud AHBL Tod McBryan Heffron Transportation Mark Gropper Renton Housing Authority, Deputy Executive Director Joel Ing Shelter Resources, Inc. Facilitated by. Stephen Antupit Mithun Erin Christensen Mithun Jeff Benesi Mithun Chris Webb Chris Webb and Associates, Inc_ Dustin Atchison CH2M Hill Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession 4��TpHOUSfyC MITHUN enton -OJIMFIA Page 4 of 20 seHon� oisYaicr �uriioah� 11. PURPOSE and BACKGROUND of HILLCREST SUPERBLOCK WORKSESSION In late 2009, a Community Investment Strategy (CIS) for the Sunset Area of Renton Highlands was adopted by Renton City Council. The CIS recommended further study of the Hillcrest "Superblock" to explore potential for leveraging City, Renton School District, and Renton Housing Authority resources. The "Family Village" concept presented in the CIS study suggested a vision of coordinated educational and open space/ recreation amenities, programming, and potential new housing on the 17 -acre block of publicly owned land. The study also expressed potential for an intergenerational center. The City convened a worksession for these partners to explore shared opportunities at the Hillcrest "Superblock," and in conjunction with both the Renton School District planning for the Hillcrest Elementary School site, and the continued planning of the Sunset Area by the City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority through the Sunset Area Planned Action EIS_ The worksession was held the afternoon of October 27, 2010. III. PARTNER UPDATES AND ACTIVITIES As presented at the Worksession: City of Renton: • The City and the Housing Authority are conducting a joint Planned Action EIS for the Sunset Area, which will be completed in spring of 2011. It includes consideration of impacts of future redevelopment of the Hillcrest "Superblock". This Planned Action EIS presents an opportunity for consistency with the Hillcrest "Superblock" vision as developed by the stakeholders. • Community Services is working with several service organizations to build an inclusive playground. Currently, the City has preliminarily identified the North Highlands Community Center site as a potentially promising location. • The City is currently updating the Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Natural Resource Plan which will inform the future role of the North Highlands Community Center, as well as providing updated data on recreation and open space needs in the Sunset Area. The North Highlands Community Center is one of the oldest facilities owned by the City. It is well used by the community meeting and recreation activities. Renton School District: Hillcrest Elementary School has been identified as a likely site for construction of a new Early Childhood Learning Center (ECLC), serving preschool and special needs. This new facility will also include outdoor play space. RSD anticipates this facility will be constructed and operational in about two to three years. Authority:sing Rentoncr 40 RHA currently owsando operates 60 senior Public housing units on the Superblock at Hillcrest Terrace, RHA plans to construct a new 2,200 t '. �a� Hillcrest,\' square foot laundry and community facility to serve these units on site. Hillcrest Terrace includes a one -acre parking area which is currently under r x � Hillcrest Terrace t e�entar(Ri♦Aj utilized and could be an opportunity for a land swap or development as art',#y' PP Y P P P �. a of a broader vision. RHA also owns a one -acre property southeast of the Hillcrest block. 1�'', oaf Q1Mh a • RHA is planning the redevelopment of Sunset Terrace, a 100 -unit public �� HFark 1andsY� on �1 Y N housing project located at Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue. As ,� Y1�tr,�t part of redevelopment, the Housing Authority will provide replacement \yl,� 1� t units, and is actively seeking opportunities to construct larger family units, 'Superblock" at Hillcrest; existing ownership such as townhouse unit types, in the Sunset Area. RHA plans to submit a includes the City, Renton School district, Demo/Dispo application in April 2011 for Sunset Terrace. and Renton Housing Authority a Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession MITHUN Ldnton Page 5 of 20 SCHC.L DISTRICT +unioany Hillcrest Early Childhood EdLcation Center * r '�, ,�==• Ala r y. ' A01*- McKn ght '1 'TMiddle ' �r� ,� School' North Highlands Community Center AIN s � yam• 1 � , � ! .� 'r'`,' �w� �r Hillcrest V ,• ', Ter e• % � M ` Hillcrest Early V � !' 1 f6hlihood Education = = .!�•„ Center, a: N Highlands Comm unity _ Center ro :.1 rim► Play structures at N Highlands Park and Hillcrest School separated by fences Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession Ilrl tyS(1V HOUS/,�, MITHUN Wd n too n IL- •r Page 6 of 20 SCHOOL DISTRICT ��RIORIIY IV. WORKSESSION SUMMARY A large group discussion of leverage opportunities resulted in the following guiding principles for consideration of the Hillcrest "Superblock". Hillcrest Guiding Principles: 1. Seek ways to provide coordinated services and amenities for families; the City, RSD, and RHA all use public money to serve the same populations. 2. Support Intergenerational services provided through coordinated service delivery. This desire is supported by the resident input during the City's Highlands Phase [I Task Force, and is supported by RHA because of the large number of senior residents in this area. 3. Provide flexibility in use of or access to spaces for community events. RSD wants to be an educator and a "service"; schools should be considered community use spaces. 4. Align with School Board goals while taking advantage of new partnerships. 5. Seek efficiency in site development and infrastructure improvements, such as sharing parking or stormwater facilities. 6. Consider the Hillcrest "Superblock" in the context of the Sunset Area neighborhood; accommodate program elements from the Sunset Area, 7. Ensure the Hillcrest "Superblock" is walkable and connected to all residents, providing security, within the "Superblock" itself. S. Seek to provide new large-family/ground-related housing units; if possible with available land. 9. Willingness to try new arrangements and new ideas, while keeping projects on time and on budget. 10. Pursue green construction, low impact development (LID), geothermal and energy opportunities as a means to save money, attract funding, and provide educational opportunities. Interagency Hillcrest worksession October 27, 2010 Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession M I T H U N _% P`NTOH HOUSby` - r :.riy Rnton Page 7 of 20 s,HO.L D,,TR,,T �UrHoxnr PROGRAM ELEMENTS The Interagency group discussed the potential program elements that could be included in the long-term vision for the Hillcrest "Superblock", as well as their priorities and alignment between the agencies. PROGRAM PARTNERS RSD CITY RHA NOTES ELEMENTS Open space) Desired Secure Pick-up for frisbee, Accessible to seniors fields Space playground; casual playing catch, etc. to view activity from open space especially for youth safe distance Play area Desired During school Inclusive play area; With large family Space must be exclusive could be accessible population would be use to school or with desired supervision Hard court area Desired Half -court basketball/ With large family Space tennis wall; high visibility population would be especially for basketball desired Covered play Desired Yes Hard court options With large family space Space population would be desired Community Desired Teaching resource Priority Priority garden Space with McKnight Natural Desired Shared use with no Rain gardens Stormwater Space reduction in access to in vicinity of management year-round recreation Hillcrest Terrace opportunities & distributed across block Dog walking Desired Yes Yes Path that is Space accessible Gathering space Movies; festive; grass I amphitheater CIRCULATION Parking and Desired Approx. 100 For park/rec center less _ 70 staff; Student Drop-off Space spaces for than 5 spaces for a parents and employees and stand-alone use. More drop off space drop-off would be needed if a needed joint -use facility were proposed, but could be shared parking. Shared Yes Yes Opps Bus unload zone Desired Up to 12 buses at Access vans Max. should (separate from Space once (8 full size (dedicated drop-off be about 500 parking & drop-off) and 4 short buses) space not needed) students Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession r`r � o-E''toy leousi,yc �. M I T H U N Wo1'1tOY1 Page 8 of 20 SCHooL PISTAICT �UfilUPny PROGRAM PARTNERS RSD CITY RHA NOTES ELEMENTS CE Meeting Desired 2-3 conference f Yes rooms Space rooms Shared Opps Yes Yes Admin. Desired 2-3 workrooms Yes Offices and Space workroom Shared Opps No Classrooms Desired Yes Potential after-school Space programs Shared Opps Not likely Preferred Age- Desired 2 indoor play Opportunity to share With large family specific Space spaces space outside school population would be indoor hours preferred desired recreation space Kitchen & Desired Consider Summer support Space Lunch and space community garden classes opportunities for nutrition education Dining Desired ? RHA provides a facility Space lunch 3x per week at Evergreen for wider residents including Hillcrest currently Gym Desired 2 indoor play 2 gyms With large family Space spaces population would be desired Shared Yes; not limited to Yes; not limited to Opportunities school age school age Restrooms Desired Yes; public access Space Shared Would consider For outdoor park Opportunities users and indoor use Storage Desired Yes Yes Space HOUSING Families Desired Yes; Sunset Terrace Significant existing Space replacement units senior housing in area Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession � � ��torl Housikr M I T H U N roLo§nton Page 9 of 20 SCHOOL 01 STRICT �� RIOPIly PROGRAM AND OPERATIONS PARTNERING OPPORTUNITIES Part of the worksession's small group exercise included discussion of opportunities for the three agencies (and other service providers) to partner in ways that support complementary operations and programs, as well as avoiding duplicate activities. While each of these example precedents varied greatly in ownership, governance and facility development specifics, they all illustrated successful solutions in co -location and service delivery coordination. This theme built on a shared acknowledgment that (Detailed synopses of the three precedents presented the City, RSD, and RHA all serve many of the same can be found in the Appendix to this report). families, sometimes just at different times of day or year, or through different points of contact. The small group exploration of possibilities also built on a presentation of several precedent projects: • The New Holly Neighborhood Campus • Neighborhood House's High Point Center • The Gladstone Center for Children and Families "Yi ifJf' Interagency Hillcrest Worksession October 27, 2010 MITHUN Pagel 0 of 20 Sunset Area; Hilicrest Worksession M enton � SCHOOL DISTRICT '�U71fOR11K This page intentionally left blank. Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession � �� ,NSON HAUS/ryC - MITHUN dntwo 1 ., Page 11 of 20 SCHOOL �ISTAICT �urrroRn SITE AND INFRASTRUCTURE OPPORTUNITIES During the worksession, participants brainstormed opportunities in three small groups. A few basic concepts were discussed, which include a range of sharing opportunities between a new Early Childhood Learning Center (ECLC), community service spaces, open space, and play areas. These range from co -locating within a shared facility to creating two separate facilities with shared infrastructure and parking including open space between them. Several elements were common to the conceptual layout options: • Passive open space serving daytime and resident users will be designed to allow flexible use by a variety of user groups, from dog -walking to casual recreational use and gardening • Landscape elements will serve multiple purposes, including reduction of stormwater treatment facilities required, aesthetic enjoyment, and delineating various connections and use areas on the "Superblock" and to the wider community • RHA's housing stock will be complemented by additional ground -related large family units, to take advantage of the rich availability of supportive services developed on the superblock • Coordinated delivery of family support services will engage RHA, City of Renton, RSD, and other partner providers (Refer to Appendix for precedent examples) • To the extent possible, parking will be shared amongst user groups to reduce the area and stormwater infrastructure required, while taking care to clearly delineate access points and ensure safety for students and youth activities Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession MITHUN }{+w}+ enton Page 12 Of 20 5GHOOL 0{STRIGT "lir Option A Option B Option A requires RSD to relocate the current Hillcrest School programs temporarily off-site during construction. The new ECLC programs would be complemented by co -locating community services above a portion of the ECLC in an upper level structure with controlled access. Additional housing adjacent to open space, community gardens, play areas, and ECLC supports large families on the current site of the North Highlands Neighborhood Center in a walkable, connected community. jk*Ofv' ECLC RNCommunity Service (upper level in Opt A) V) Play area Community Garden Open Space 41.44 Housing Option B allows RSD to operate current on-site programs in Hillcrest School until completion of the new ECLC on the adjacent area of the superblock. Community services would co -locate adjacent to, and in coordinated delivery with, RSD's family support function in the new facility. Existing North Highlands Neighborhood Center would be displaced during construction. The portion of the site currently occupied by Hillcrest School would be reconfigured to provide destination inclusive play area, community garden, and some large family housing in ground related units, within a walkable and well connected community. ECLC Community Service Play area Community Garden Open Space i Si j Housing Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession MI T H U N �pY4N HOUS/�,C 6.. Page 13 of 20 LC ntoRn Option C Option D Option C focuses the new SCLC and community services around a shared green space and play area. A new SCLC on the existing Hillcrest School site would require a temporary off-site location for RSD programs. A separate structure for community services and a shared gymnasium would also increase infrastructure and parking needs, since co -location sharing opportunities would be reduced. However, providing a second gymnasium would be duplicative and costly. Additional housing, conveniently located next to open space, community services, and ECLC, serves large families with ground related choices and supportive services in a walkable, connected community. * ECLC ) _ Open Space RM Community Service ;#'�'� Housing f. Play area Community Garden Option D separates a new ECLC structure from a future Community Service center, allowing new construction of RSD's ECLC to be completed on (current) city property before removal of the existing Hillcrest School building. Once removed, that site would accommodate a Community Service center, sharing with the ECLC a centrally -located destination play area. Shared parking opportunities would be possible only after demolition of the current Hillcrest School, but could also potentially serve an increment of additional ground -related family housing on the northwestern edge of the superblock. Informal open space for casual community use would be located near the existing school play field. I ECLC Open Space Community Serviceppp ••� Housing Play area A Sport court 1 overflow parking Community Garden Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession � � 4t�ON st011sriyC � . MiTHUN enton - , .� Page 14 of 20 SCHOOL DISTRICT ��rHottn� This page intentionally left blank. Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession MITHUN � enton Page 15 of 20 scr+oo� aisTaicr �urnoA�ti Precedents: Learning and Family Development Centers New Holly Neighborhood Campus L. S11W7 � Child Development • Megumi Pre -School • Neighborhood House - Early Head Start • Neighborhood House - Head Start Citizenship • Center for Career Alternatives Community Building • Community Building Office Counseling • Atlantic Street Center: Youth & Family Counseling Education • Catholic Community Services: Youth Tutoring Program • East African Community Services • Horn of Africa Services • South Seattle Community College: Learning Center at New Holly • Vietnamese Friendship Association Employment • The Job Connection Health • Seattle University School of Nursing Library • Seattle Public Library Teens Atlantic Street Center: Teen Center Youth & Family • Atlantic Street Center: Family Center • Girl Scouts: Skills for Life Neighborhood House: Family and Social Services Appendix Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession M I T H U N yt�i°4'�°usryC 4.e , RL6 nton Pa a 17 of 20 ,, r T Page SCHOOL DISTRICT fHOR41 Precedents: Learning and Family Development Centers Neighborhood House's High Point Center Neighborhood House's High Point Center provides services that strengthen High Point families and support the development of a healthy, vibrant and green community. The center is also a place where families from all walks of life can gather and share food, stories and experiences. It's a community living room for everything from town meetings to neighborhood potlucks, book clubs to Head Start classes. Services 0 - 3 Years 3 - 5 Years Children Teens Adults Seniors The Family Center FIN LJ Neighborhood House The Family Center is dedicated to supporting families by providing programs that strengthen and foster relationships among individuals, children and communities. The multilingual, multicultural staff engage, educate and empower the community in its mission to help families attain self-sufficiency. This is achieved through a wide range of interactive, development -focused Family Center programs: - Play and Learn - Family Night - Cambodian Community Club - Vietnamese Tea - ESL/Citizenship Class - Community Leadership Program -Art and Block - Family Advisory Council -Arts & Crafts Workshop Appendix Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession � [pN MOUyr M I T H U N p4Nr�R �� - == Page 18 of 20 enton SCHOOL DISTRICT �UrHOA+T< Precedents: Learning and Family Development Centers Gladstone Center for Children and Families Gladstone Center for Children and Families First facility in Oregon that provides a continuum of services for young children and their families in one location. 30,000 square foot Early Childhood facility (former Thriftway store) combines: • District's Kindergarten classes with • County Education Services District's Early Childhood Program and • Head Start Classes Other partners include Healthy Start of Clackamas County, Community College, County Department of Human Services and County Mental Health. Appendix Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession M I T H U N �- nton �tx�°� Ho�sk£ �. Page 19 of 20 SCHOOL DISTRICT gun+oa�sy MITHUN Renton Sunset Area/Hillcrest Worksession October 27th, 2010 Meeting Agenda 1 PM Intros I Review Agenda I Ground Rules / Goals for the day 1:15 Partner Updates — 5 min. each City Sunset Area PA/EIS and North Highlands Neighborhood Center RSD Bond/Early Childhood Programs RHA Sunset Terrace / Hillcrest Terrace 1:30 Precedents — 10 min.(Stephen A.) 2:10 Hillcrest Goals and Matrix — Large Group / Input — 45 min (Mithun Team facilitiates) 3:00 3 Small Groups More work on Matrix --Program & Operations Partnering Opportunities — 25 min Site Opportunities: Shared Infrastructure, Program adjacencies — 25 min Timeline: Phasing / Critical Path — 10 min 4:00 Report Out 10 minutes each group 4:30 Synthesis 1 Commitment to next steps 5:00 ADJOURN Pier 56,1201 Alaskan Way, 9240 Seattle, WA 98101 T 206.623.3344 F 206.623.7405 mithurixom Appendix Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession MITHUN µYON HOLS/ 4 � e nto n o- '' • . :. Page 20 of 2p rCHoor_ DISTRICT mDcny Appendix E Proposed Planned Action ordinance March 2011 -Proposed ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Renton, Washington, establishing a Planned Action for the Sunset Area Community pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act WHEREAS, the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") and implementing rules provide for the integration of environmental review with land use planning and project review through designation of "Planned Actions" by jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A ("GMA" ); and WHEREAS, the City has adopted a 2004 Comprehensive Plan complying with the GMA; and WHEREAS, the City has engaged in extensive subarea planning for the Sunset Area since 2005 and adopted a Community Investment Strategy in 2009 to guide the area's growth and redevelopment, and revitalization of the Sunset Area is desirable and in the best interest of the City; and WHEREAS, the City adopted regulations and design guidelines for the Sunset Area in 2007; and WHEREAS, the Sunset Area includes the Sunset Terrace public housing project which will be proposed for redevelopment by the Renton Housing Authority; and WHEREAS, the Sunset Area Community Planned Action EIS identifies impacts and mitigation measures associated with planned development in the area; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIS was issued on December 17, 2010 and subject to a 45 - day comment period; and WHEREAS, the Final EIS was issued on April 1, 2011 and received a 30 -day review period; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted development regulations which will help protect the environment, and has adopted zoning regulations specific to the Sunset area which will guide the amount, location, form, and quality of desired development; and WHEREAS, designation of a Planned Action expedites the permitting process for subsequent, implementing projects whose impacts have been previously addressed in a Planned Action environmental impact statement ("EIS"), and thereby encourages desired growth and economic development; and Planned Action Ordinance - Sunset Area Planned Action EIS March 2011 -Proposed WHEREAS, the Renton Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 5 and April 6, 2011 regarding the proposed Planned Action; and WHEREAS, the Sunset Area Community is deemed to be appropriate for designation of a Planned Action. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. - Purpose. The City Council declares that the purposes of this ordinance are to: A. Combine analysis of environmental impacts with the City's development of plans and regulations; B. Designate the Sunset Area Community as a Planned Action for purposes of environmental review and permitting of subsequent, implementing projects pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.210.031; C. Determine that the EIS prepared for the Sunset Area Community meets the requirements of a Planned Action EIS pursuant to SEPA; D. Establish criteria and procedures, consistent with state law, that will determine whether subsequent, implementing projects qualify as Planned Actions; E. Provide the public with information about Planned Actions and how the City will process applications for implementing projects; F. Streamline and expedite the land use review and approval process for qualifying projects by relying on the EIS completed for the Planned Action; and G. Apply the City's development regulations together with the mitigation measures described in the EIS and this Ordinance to address the impacts of future development contemplated by the Planned Action. SECTION 2. —Findings The City Council finds as follows: A. The City is subject to the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA, RCW 36.70A), and is located within an Urban Growth Area; B. The City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan complying with the GMA, and is amending the Comprehensive Plan to address transportation improvements and capital facilities specific to the Sunset Area C. The City has adopted a Community Investment Strategy, development regulations and design guidelines specific to the Sunset Area which will guide growth and revitalization of the area, including the Sunset Terrace public housing project; Planned Action Ordinance - 2 Sunset Area Planned Action EIS March 2011 Proposed D. The City has prepared an EIS for the Sunset Area ("Sunset Area Community Planned Action EIS"), and finds that this EIS adequately addresses the probable significant environmental impacts associated with the type and amount of development planned to occur in the designated Planned Action area; E. The mitigation measures identified in the Planned Action EIS and attached to this ordinance as Exhibit B, together with adopted City development regulations, will adequately mitigate significant impacts from development within the Planned Action area; F. The Comprehensive Plan and Planned Action EIS identify the location, type and amount of development that is contemplated by the Planned Action; G. Future projects that are implemented consistent with the Planned Action will protect the environment, benefit the public and enhance economic development; H. The City has provided numerous opportunities for meaningful public involvement in the proposed Planned Action, has considered all comments received, and, as appropriate, has modified the proposal or mitigation measures in response to comments; I. The Sunset Area Planned Action is not an essential public facility as defined by RCW 36.70A.200(1); J. The Planned Action area applies to a defined area that is smaller than the overall City boundaries; and K. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed Planned Action. SECTION 3. - Procedures and Criteria for Evaluating and Determining Projects as Planned Actions. A. Planned Action Area. The Planned Action designation shall apply to the area shown in Exhibit A. B. Environmental Document. A Planned Action determination for a site-specific implementing project application shall be based on the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIS issued by the City on December 17, 2010 and the Final EIS published on April 1, 2011. The Draft and Final EiSs shall comprise the Planned Action EIS. The mitigation measures contained in Exhibit B are based upon the findings of the Planned Action EIS and shall, along with adopted City regulations, provide the framework that the City will use to impose appropriate conditions on qualifying Planned Action projects. Planned Action Ordinance - Sunset Area Planned Action EIS March 2011 - Proposed C. Planned Action Designated. Land uses and activities described in the Planned Action EIS, subject to the thresholds described in subsection 3.1) and the mitigation measures contained in Exhibit B, are designated Planned Actions or Planned Action Projects pursuant to RCW 43.210.031. A development application for a site-specific Planned Action project located within the Sunset Area shall be designated a Planned Action if it meets the criteria set forth in subsection 3.1) of this ordinance and applicable laws, codes, development regulations and standards of the City. D. Planned Action Qualifications. The following thresholds shall be used to determine if a site-specific development proposed within the Sunset Area is contemplated by the Planned Action and has had its environmental impacts evaluated in the Planned Action EIS: (1) Land Use. (a) The following general categories/types of land uses are considered Planned Actions: Single family and multi -family residential; schools; parks; community and public facilities; office and conference; retail; entertainment and recreation; services; utilities; and mixed-use development incorporating more than one use category where permitted. (b) Individual land uses considered as Planned Actions shall include those uses specifically listed in RMC 4-2-060 as permitted or conditionally permitted in the zoning classifications applied to properties within the Planned Action area provided they are consistent with the general categories/types of land uses in (1)(a). Action: (2) Development Thresholds. (a) The following amount of various new land uses are anticipated by the Planned Land Use Development Amount Alternative 3 FEIS Preferred Alt Residential 2,506 units 2,339 units Schools 57,010 gross square feet 5 7,0 10 gross square feet Parks 0.25 acres 3 acres Office/Service 776,805 gross square feet 745,810 gross square feet Retail 476,299 gross square feet 457,119 Voss square feet Utilities Tbd Tbd (b) Shifting development amounts between categories of uses may be permitted so long as the total build -out does not exceed the aggregate amount of development and trip generation reviewed in the EIS, and so long as the impacts of that development have been identified in the Planned Action EIS and are mitigated consistent with Exhibit B. (c) If future development proposals in the Sunset Planned Action area exceed the development thresholds specified in this ordinance, further environmental review may be required pursuant to WAC 197-11-172. Further, if proposed development would alter the Planned Action Ordinance - 4 Sunset Area Planned Action EIS March 2011 -Proposed assumptions and analysis in the Planned Action EIS, further environmental review may be required. (3) Building Height. Building height shall not exceed those permitted by the applicable zoning district, as permitted in the Renton Municipal Code. (4) Transportation. (a) Trip Ranges & Thresholds. The number of new PM Peak Hour Trips anticipated in the Planned Action Area and reviewed in the EIS are as follows: Alternative/Period PM Peak Hour Trips* 2006 2,082 trips 2030 Alternative 3 5,555 trips 2030 Preferred Alt 5,386 trips Net increase from 2006 2030 Alternative 3 3,473 trips Net increase from 2006 2030 Preferred Alternative 3,304 trips *ail P.M. peak hour trips with at least one end (origin, destination, or both) in TAZs containing the study area Uses or activities that would exceed the range of maximum trip levels will require additional SEPA review. (b) Concurrency. The determination of transportation impacts shall be based on the City's concurrency management program contained in RMC 4-6-070. (c) Off -Site Mitigation. As provided in the EIS and RMC 4-6-070, in order to mitigate transportation related impacts, all Planned Action Projects shall pay an environmental mitigation fee to participate in and pay a proportionate share of off-site improvements unless otherwise waived by the City Council. Off-site improvements are identified in Attachment B. (d) Administrator Discretion. The Administrator of Community and Economic Development or his/her designee shall have discretion to determine incremental and total trip generation, consistent with the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (latest edition) or an alternative manual accepted by the Administrator at his sole discretion, for each project permit application proposed under this Planned Action. (5) Elements of the Environment and Degree of Impacts. A proposed project that would result in a significant change in the type or degree of impacts to any of the elements of the environment analyzed in the Planned Action EIS, shall not qualify as a Planned Action. (6) Changed Conditions. Should environmental conditions change significantly from those analyzed in the Planned Action EIS, the City's SEPA Responsible Official Planned Action Ordinance - Sunset Area Planned Action EIS March 2011 - Proposed may determine that the Planned Action designation is no longer applicable until supplemental environmental review is conducted. E. Planned Action Review Criteria. (1) The City's Environmental Review Committee may designate as "planned actions", pursuant to RCW 43.21C.030, applications that meet all of the following conditions: (a) the proposal is located within the Planned Action area identified in Exhibit A of this ordinance; (b) the proposed uses and activities are consistent with those described in the Planned Action EIS and Section 3.D of this ordinance; (c) the proposal is within the Planned Action thresholds and other criteria of Section 3.D of this ordinance; (d) the proposal is consistent with the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and applicable zoning regulations; (e) the proposal's significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified in the Planned Action EIS; (f) the proposal's significant impacts have been mitigated by application of the measures identified in Exhibit B, and other applicable city regulations, together with any modifications or variances or special permits that may be required; (g) the proposal complies with all applicable local, state and/or federal laws and regulations, and the Environmental Review Committee determines that these constitute adequate mitigation; and (h) the proposal is not an essential public facility as defined by RCW 36.70A.200(l ). (2) The City shall base its decision on review of a SEPA checklist, or an alternative form approved by the Department of Ecology, and review of the application and supporting documentation. (3) A proposal that meets the criteria of this section shall be considered to qualify and be designated as a planned action, consistent with the requirements or RCW 43.210.030, WAC 197-11-164 et seq, and this ordinance. F. Effect of Planned Action. (1) Designation as a planned action project means that a qualifying proposal has been reviewed in accordance with this ordinance and found to be consistent with its development parameters and thresholds, and with the environmental analysis contained in the Planned Action EIS. (2) Upon determination by the City's Environmental Review Committee that the proposal meets the criteria of Section 3.D and qualifies as a planned action, the proposal shall not require a SEPA threshold determination, preparation of an EIS, or be subject to further review pursuant to SEPA. Planned Action Ordinance - 6 Sunset Area Planned Action EIS March 2011 -Proposed G. Planned Action Permit Process. Applications for planned actions shall be reviewed pursuant to the following process: (1) Development applications shall meet all applicable requirements of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). Applications for planned actions shall be made on forms provided by the City and shall include a SEPA checklist, or an approved Planned Action checklist. (2) The City's Development Services Division shall determine whether the application is complete as provided in RMC 4-8-100. (3) If the application is for a project within the Planned Action Area defined in Exhibit A, the application will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the criteria of this ordinance and thereby qualifies as a Planned Action project. The Environmental Review Committee shall notify the applicant of its decision. If the project is determined to qualify as a Planned Action, it shall proceed in accordance with the applicable permit review procedures specified in RMC 4-8-08OG and 4-9, except that no SEPA threshold determination, EIS or additional SEPA review shall be required. The decision of the Environmental Review Committee regarding qualification as a Planned Action shall be final. (4) Public notice and review for projects that qualify as Planned Actions shall be tied to the underlying permit. The review process for the underlying permit shall be as provided in RMC 4-8-08OG and 4-9. If notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit, the notice shall state that the project has qualified as a Planned Action. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no special notice is required by this ordinance. (5) If a project is determined to not qualify as a Planned Action, the Environmental Review Committee shall so notify the applicant and prescribe a SEPA review procedure consistent with the City's SEPA regulations and the requirements of state law. The notice shall describe the elements of the application that result in failure to qualify as a Planned Action. (6) Projects that fail to qualify as Planned Actions may incorporate or otherwise use relevant elements of the Planned Action EIS, as well as other relevant SEPA documents, to meet their SEPA requirements. The Environmental Review Committee may limit the scope of SEPA review for the non -qualifying project to those issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Planned Action EIS. SECTION 4. - Monitoring and Review. A. The City shall monitor the progress of development in the designated Planned Action area to ensure that it is consistent with the assumptions of this ordinance and the Planned Action Ordinance - 7 Sunset Area Planned Action EIS March 2011 - Proposed Planned Action EIS regarding the type and amount of development and associated impacts, and with the mitigation measures and improvements planned for the Sunset Area. B. This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed no later than five years from its effective date by the Environmental Review Committee to determine the continuing relevance of its assumptions and findings with respect to environmental conditions in the Planned Action area, the impacts of development, and required mitigation measures. Based upon this review, the City may propose amendments to this ordinance and/or may supplement or revise the Planned Action EIS. SECTION 5. - Con ict. In the event of a conflict between this Ordinance or any mitigation measure imposed thereto, and any ordinance or regulation of the City, the provisions of this ordinance shall control EXCEPT that the provision of any Uniform Code shall supersede. SECTION G. - Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or its application be declared to be unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the constitutionality or validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. SECTION 7. - Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. Planned Action Ordinance - S Sunset Area Planned Action EIS March 2011 - Proposed EXHIBIT A PLANNED ACTION AREA Planned Action Ordinance - Sunset Area Planned Action EIS Mmw� Figure 2-1 ICFPlanned Action Study Area INTERN ATI G AI Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS I$ March 2011 - Proposed EXHIBIT B PLANNED ACTION EIS MITIGATION MEASURES Planned Action Ordinance - 10 Sunset Area Planned Action EIS 0 Exhibit B; Sunset Area Community Planned Action EIS Mitigation Measures Table of Contents Introductionand Purpose...................................................................................................................... 3 SEPATerms............................................................................................................................................. 3 GeneralInterpretation...........................................................................................................................3 Summary of Proposal, Alternatives, and Land Capacity........................................................................4 Proposal and Alternatives................................................................................................................4 LandCapacity...................................................................................................................................4 Location................................................................................................... ..... 5 .......................................... MitigationDocument.............................................................................................................................5 1. Earth....................................................................................................................................6 2. Air Quality...........................................................................................................................8 3. Water Resources...............................................................................................................14 4. Plants and Animals............................................................................................................17 5. Energy.................................................................................................. ........................19 6. Noise................................................................................................................................. 21 7. Environmental Health.......................................................................................................23 8. Land Use............................................................................................................................26 9. Socioeconomics............................................................................................ ..28 .................. 10. Housing.............................................................................................................................30 11. Environmental Justice.......................................................................................................32 12. Aesthetics..........................................................................................................................34 13. Historic/Cultural................................................................................................................37 14. Transportation..................................................................................................................40 15. Parks and Recreation........................................................................................................44 16. Public Services...................................................................................................................46 17. Utilities..............................................................................................................................52 AdvisoryNotes.....................................................................................................................................56 Attachment 1: Draft EIS, Cultural Resources Appendix J, Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery ........................................................................................................58 Attachment 2: Figure 3.17-1 Potential Subarea Utility Improvements and Phasing ........................ 60 Water.................................................................................................................................................... 61 Overview..................... ................................................................................................................... 61 Edmonds -Glenwood Phase 1.........................................................................................................61 NewLibrary ....................................................................................................................................61 New Mixed -Use Building Adjacent to New Library ..............................................................................62 RHA's Piha Site...............................................................................................................................62 Planned Action Ordinance 1 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Sunset Terrace Redevelopment..................................................................................................... 63 Edmonds -Glenwood Phase 2.........................................................................................................63 WaterMain Costs.......................................................................................................................... 64 WastewaterCollection.........................................................................................................................64 Overview........................................................................................................................................ 64 DetailedDiscussion........................................................................................................................64 Planned Action Ordinance Exhibit 8; Mitigation Document List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Land Capacity- Planned Action Alternatives................................................... 5 Table 2. Earth Significant Impacts...................................................................................................................... 6 Table 3. Earth Mitigation Measures................................................................................................................... 7 Table 4. Air Quality Significant Impacts........................................................................................................... 8 Table 5. Air Quality Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................11 Table 6. Potential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures........................................................................12 Table 7. Water Resources SignificantImpacts............................................................................................14 Table 8. Plants and Animals SignificantImpacts........................................................................................17 Table 9. Energy Significant Impacts................................................................................................................19 Table 10. Energy Mitigation Measures..............................................................................................................20 Table 11. Noise Significant Impacts...................................................................................................................21 Table 12. Noise Mitigation Measures.................................................................................................................22 Table 13. Environmental Health Impacts........................................................................................................23 Table 14. Environmental Health Mitigation Measures...............................................................................24 Table15. Land Use Impacts...................................................................................................................................26 Table 16. Land Use Mitigation Measures.........................................................................................................27 Table 17. Socioeconomics Impacts.....................................................................................................................28 Table 18. Socioeconomics Mitigation Measures...........................................................................................30 Table19. HousingImpacts.....................................................................................................................................30 Table 20. Housing Mitigation Measures...........................................................................................................32 Table 21. Environmental Justice Impacts........................................................................................................32 Table 22. Environmental Justice Mitigation Measures...............................................................................34 Table23. Aesthetic Impacts...................................................................................................................................34 Table 24. Aesthetic Mitigation Measures.........................................................................................................36 Table 25. Historic/ Cultural Impacts..................................................................................................................37 Table 26. Historic/Cultural Mitigation Measures.........................................................................................38 Table27. Transportation Impacts......................................................................................................................40 Table 28. Transportation Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................42 Table 29. Parks and Recreation Impacts..........................................................................................................44 Table 30. Parks and Recreation Mitigation Measures................................................................................45 Table 31. Public Services Impacts.......................................................................................................................46 Table 32. Public Services Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................50 Table33. Utilities Impacts......................................................................................................................................52 Table 34. Utilities Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................54 Planned Action Ordinance Exhibit 8; Mitigation Document Introduction and Purpose The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires environmental review for project and non - project proposals that are likely to have adverse impacts upon the environment. In order to meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and SEPA requirements, the City of Renton issued the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the City of Renton Sunset Area Community Planned Action on December 17, 2010 and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the City of Renton Sunset Area Community Planned Action on April 1, 2011. The Draft together with the Final EIS is referenced herein as the "EIS". The EIS has identified significant beneficial and adverse impacts that are anticipated to occur with the future development of the Planned Action area, together with a number of possible measures to mitigate those significant adverse impacts. The purpose of this Mitigation Document is to establish specific mitigation measures, based upon significant adverse impacts identified in the ECS. The mitigation measures shall apply to future development proposals which are consistent with the Planned Action scenarios reviewed in the EIS, and which are located within the Renton Sunset Area Community Planned Action Study Area (see Exhibit A). SEPA Terms As used in this document, the words action, planned action, or proposal are defined as described below. • "Action" means projects or programs financed, licensed, regulated, conducted or approved by a governmental Agency. "Project actions" involve decisions on a specific project such as a construction or management activity for a defined geographic area. "Non -project" actions involve decisions about policies, plans or programs. (see WAC 197-11-704) • "Planned Action" refers to types of project actions that are designated by ordinance for a specific geographic area and addressed in an EIS, in conjunction with a comprehensive plan or subarea plan, a fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master planned development or phased project. (see WAC 197-11-164) • "Proposal" means a proposed action that may be an action and regulatory decision of an agency, or any action proposed by applicants. (see WAC 197-11-784) General Interpretation Where a mitigation measure includes the words "shall" or "will," inclusion of that measure in project plans is mandatory in order to qualify a project as a Planned Action. Where "should" or "would" appear, the mitigation measure maybe considered by the project applicant as a source of additional mitigation, as feasible or necessary, to ensure that a project qualifies as a Planned Action. Unless stated specifically otherwise, the mitigation measures that require preparation of plans, conduct of studies, construction of improvements, conduct of maintenance activities, etc., are the responsibility of the applicant or designee to fund and/or perform. Planned Action Ordinance Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Summary of Proposal, Alternatives, and Land Capacity Proposal and Alternatives The proposal is to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community and promote associated neighborhood growth and revitalization as part of a Planned Action. Redevelopment of the public housing community and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance would encourage redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area through land use transformation and growth, public service and infrastructure improvements, and a streamlined environmental review process. The Renton Housing Authority (RHA) is the proponent of the proposal's primary development action, redevelopment of the existing Sunset Terrace public housing community; however, RHA would likely redevelop the property in partnership with other public and private non-profit and for-profit developers and agencies. The City of Renton (City) is responsible for public service and infrastructure improvements for Sunset Terrace and the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood, is the agency responsible for streamlining local permitting and environmental review through this Planned Action, and is the agency that would regulate private neighborhood redevelopment in accordance with its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. The City analyzed three alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) as part of the Draft EIS to determine its Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is evaluated in the Final EIS. All four alternatives are described below. Alternative 1 (No Action). RHA would develop affordable housing on two vacant properties, but it would not redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing property. Very limited public investment would be implemented by the City, resulting in lesser redevelopment across the Planned Action Study Area. A Planned Action would not be designated. The No Action Alternative is required to be studied under NEPA and SEPA. Alternative .2. This alternative represents a moderate level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area based on investment in mixed -income housing and mixed uses in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, targeted infrastructure and public services throughout the Planned Action Study Area, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Alternative 3. This alternative represents the highest level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area, based on investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with a greater number dwellings developed in a mixed -income, mixed-use style, major public investment in study area infrastructure and services, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Preferred Alternative. This alternative represents neighborhood growth similar to and slightly less than Alternative 3 in the Planned Action Study Area, based on investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with a moderate number dwellings developed in a mixed -income, mixed-use style oriented around a larger park space and loop road, major public investment in study area infrastructure and services, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Land Capacity To determine future growth scenarios for the next 20 years, a land capacity analysis was prepared. The alternatives produce different future growth estimates. Each would affect different amounts of property. Planned Action Ordinance Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Alternative 1 assumes that about 16% (35 acres) of the 213 net acres of Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop. • Alternative 2 assumes that about 32% (68 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop. • Alternative 3 assumes that approximately 40% (84 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop. • The Preferred Alternative assumes that approximately 40% (84 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop. The latter two alternatives - Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative which is similar - represent the higher growth levels studied in the EIS and differ by about 7%; these two alternatives are considered for the purposes of this mitigation document to be the "Planned Action Alternatives." This mitigation document is based on the range of growth considered in the Planned Action Alternatives. More details on the components of the alternatives can be found in Final EIS Chapter 2. Table 1. Summary of Land Capacity— Planned Action Alternatives Net New Growth Dwelling Units/Jobs Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative Dwelling units 2,506 2,339 Population 5,789 5,403 Employment SF 1,310,113 1,247,444-1,259,944 Jobs 3,330 3,154-3,192 Location The Sunset Terrace public housing community is generally bounded by Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE on the north, NE 10th Street on the east, NE Sunset Boulevard (State Route [SR] 900) on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west. See Exhibit A of the Planned Action Ordinance. The Sunset Terrace public housing community is part of the Sunset Area Community neighborhood. This broader neighborhood is the Planned Action Study Area considered in the EIS; it is generally bounded by NE 21st Street on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7th Street on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE. See Exhibit A of the Planned Action Ordinance. Mitigation Document Based on the EIS, this Mitigation Document identifies significant adverse environmental impacts that are anticipated to occur as a result of development of planned action projects. Mitigation measures identified in the EIS are reiterated here for inclusion in proposed projects to mitigate related impacts and to qualify as Planned Action projects. Consistency review under the Planned Action, development plan review, and other permit approvals will be required for specific development actions under the Proposed Action pursuant to WAC 197 - Planned Action Ordinance Exhibit B: Mitigation Document 11-172. Additional project conditions may be imposed on planned action projects based upon the analysis of the proposal in relationship to independent requirements of the City, state or federal requirements or review criteria. Any applicant for a project within the Planned Action area may propose alternative mitigation measures, if appropriate and/or as a result of changed circumstances, in order to allow equivalent substitute mitigation for identified impacts. Such modifications shall be evaluated by the City's SEPA Responsible Official prior to any project approvals by the City. In combination, regulations applicable to each element of the environment and mitigation measures identified in the EIS and documented in this Mitigation Document that are applied to any planned action proposal will adequately mitigate all significant environmental impacts associated with planned action proposals, except for those impacts that are identified as "significant unavoidable adverse impacts." Provided below for each element of the environment analyzed in the EIS for the proposed action are: (a) summary of significant environmental impacts (construction, operation, indirect and cumulative); (b) a summary of unavoidable adverse impacts; (c) mitigation measures established by this mitigation document for both the Planned Action Study Area as a whole as well as the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea; and (d) a list of City policies/regulations on which mitigation measures are based. Advisory notes are included at the end of the document to list the federal, state, and local laws that act as mitigation measures. 1. Earth Significant Impacts Table 2. Earth Significant Impacts There is an increased risk of landsliding There are no mapped geologic hazards, Planned Actian Ordinance I Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Erosion could increase as a result of soil Same as Planned Action Study Area disturbance; however, much of the existing soils are glacial outwash materials with low erosion potential. Codified best management practices minimize the potential for both erosion and erosion transport to waterways. Construction could require import and Similar to Planned Action Study Area. export of earth materials; however, The underlying glacial outwash soils with minimal planning and protection, have the highest potential for reuse the outwash soils in most of the study within the Planned Action Study Area area could be reused as backfill, and consequently the subarea. minimizing import and export. There is an increased risk of landsliding There are no mapped geologic hazards, Planned Actian Ordinance I Exhibit B: Mitigation Document I Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea due to soil disturbance, changing drainage, or temporarily oversteepening slopes. However, a relatively small proportion of the study area is considered either steep slope or erosion hazard. Both the glacial outwash and till soils are generally strong and of low concern regarding slope instability. and thus a low potential for impacts. Operations Active seismicity in the Planned Action Same as Planned Action Study Area Study Area would require that inhabited structures, including buildings, bridges, and water tanks, be designed to withstand seismic loading. Indirect The major steep slope, erosion, and There are no mapped geologic hazards, landslide hazard areas within the and thus a low potential for impacts. Planned Action Study Area extend beyond the study area boundaries. Development on the slope above (inside) the study area boundary could increase the risk of erosion and landsliding downslope (outside) of the study area. Cumulative Same as indirect impacts above; There are no mapped geologic hazards, intensive development around this and thus a low potential for impacts. hazard area outside of the Planned Action Study Area by other projects is not currently anticipated, but could increase the risk of erosion and landsliding. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There are no significant unavoidable adverse earth impacts. Mitigation Measures Table 3. Earth Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The following mitigation measures shall apply to Mitigation measures shall be the same as the development throughout the Planned Action Planned Action Study Area, except that there are Study Area. no geologic hazard areas to avoid. Apply erosion -control best management practices (BMPs), as described in Appendix D of the City of Renton Amendments to the King CountySurface Water Design Manual'. 1 City of Renton. 2010. City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. February. Appendix D, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Standards. Planned Action Ordinance Exhibit B: Mitigation document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Limit development in geologic hazard areas and their buffers, or require rigorous engineered design to reduce the hazard, as currently codified. Planned Action applicants shall identify in their applications the source of earth material to be used in construction and shall consider earth material reuse and provide information to the City regarding why earth material reuse is not feasible if it is not proposed. The City may condition the planned action application to provide for earth material reuse where feasible. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations — General RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations RMC 4-5-050 International Building Code RMC 4-6-030 Drainage [Surface Water) Standards 2. Air Quality Significant Impacts Table 4. Air quality Significant Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Dust from excavation and grading Same as Planned Action Study could cause temporary, localized Area increases in the ambient concentrations of fugitive dust and suspended particulate matter. Construction activities would likely require the use of diesel -powered, heavy trucks and smaller equipment such as generators and compressors. These engines would emit air pollutants that could slightly degrade local air quality in the immediate vicinity of the activity. Some construction activities could cause odors detectible to some Same as PIanned Action Study Area Same as Planned Action Study Planned Action Ordinance 8 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document U Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea people in the vicinity of the activity, Area especially during paving operations using tar and asphalt. Such odors would be short-term and localized. Construction equipment and material hauling could temporarily increase traffic flow on city streets adjacent to a construction area. if construction delays traffic enough to significantly reduce travel speeds in the area, general traffic -related emissions would increase. Operations Emissions from Stationary equipment, mechanical Commercial Operations equipment, and trucks at loading docks at office and retail buildings l could cause air pollution issues at adjacent residential property. i However, new commercial facilities would be required to register their pollutant -emitting equipment and to use best available control technology to minimize emissions. Emissions From Vehicle Tailpipe emissions from vehicles Travel would be the major source of air pollutant emissions associated with growth. The net increases in vehicle miles travelled (VMT) forecast as a result of Planned Action alternatives are inconsequentially small compared to the Puget Sound regional VMT and its implied impact on regional emissions and photochemical smog. This would not alter Puget Sound Regional Council's conclusion that future regional emissions will be less than the allowable emissions budgets of air quality maintenance plans. Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Planned Action Study Area The forecasted VMT from the subarea is only a small fraction of the Puget Sound regional totals. Future emissions from increased population and motor vehicles in the subarea would not cause significant regional air quality impacts. Planned Action Ordinance Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Air Quality Attainment Land use density and population Same as Planned Action Study Status would increase in the Planned Area. Action Study Area; however, these increases represent only a small fraction of the Puget Sound regional totals. Furthermore, this alternative would not result in land use changes that include unusual industrial developments. Therefore, development in the Planned Action Study Area would not cause a substantial increase in air quality concentrations that would result in a change in air quality attainment status. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Planned Action alternatives are Planned Action Alternatives Study Area and Subarea estimated to result in this would result in an estimated alternative would result in an 3,760 to 6,61.2 metric tons/year estimated 43,050 to 45,766 metric of GHG emissions. tons/year of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the Planned Action Study Area. Outdoor Air Toxics The Planned Action Study Area is in Impacts on outdoor air toxics a mixed-use residential and would be similar to those commercial zone that does not described for the Planned Action include unusual sources of toxic air Study Area. pollutants. The major arterial street through the Planned Action Study Area (NE Sunset Boulevard) does not carry an unusually high percentage of heavy-duty truck traffic. Thus, the Planned Action Alternatives would not expose existing or future residents to disproportionately high concentrations of toxic air pollutants generated by local emission sources. Indoor Air Toxics See Potential Sunset Terrace RHA development would be Redevelopment Subarea constructed according to local building codes that require adequate insulation and ventilation. Regardless, studies have shown that residents at lower-income developments often suffer higher rates of respiratory ailments than the general public. Therefore, the City and RHA will explore measures to improve indoor air quality beyond what is normally Planned Action Ordinance 10 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document 8 Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea achieved by simply complying with building codes. Indirect and Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Subarea, Study Area, and Region With the highest level of transit - oriented development in the study area of the studied alternatives, Planned Action Alternatives would provide the greatest regional GHG emission reductions, a net reduction of 3,907-4,164 metric tons/year, compared with the No Action Alternative studied in the EIS. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts With the highest level of transit - oriented development in the subarea of the alternatives studied, Planned Action Alternatives would provide the greatest reduction in regional GHG emissions, a net reduction of 150-467 metric tons/year, compared with the No Action Alternative studied in the EIS. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts on regional or local air quality are anticipated. Temporary, localized dust and odor impacts could occur during the construction activities. The regulations and mitigation measures described below are adequate to mitigate any adverse impacts anticipated to occur as a result of study area growth increases. Mitigation Measures Table 5. Air Quality Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Emission Control In addition to the mitigation measures for air The City shall require all construction contractors quality described under the Planned Action Study to implement air quality control plans for Area, the following mitigation measures apply: construction activities in the study area. The air o Should the phases of the Potential Sunset quality control plans shall include BM Ps to Terrace Redevelopment Subarea occur control fugitive dust and odors emitted by diesel concurrently rather than in a phased and construction equipment. sequential manner, the City and RHA will The following BMPs shall be used to control consider adding the Northeast Diesel fugitive dust. Collaborative Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects - Model Contract • Use water sprays or other non-toxic dust Specifications or an equivalent approachz as control methods on unpaved roadways. additional mitigation measures. • Minimize vehicle speed while traveling on The City and RHA and other public or private unpaved surfaces. applicants within the subarea should explore • Prevent trackout of mud onto public streets. measures to improve indoor air quality beyond what is normally achieved by simply complying • Cover soil piles when practical. with building codes. For example, grant • Minimize work during periods of high winds programs such as the Breath Easy Homes when practical. program could provide funding to foster construction methods that reduce dust, mold, Z Northeast Diesel Collaborative. December 2010. Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, Model Contract Specification. Available: <http://www.northeastdiesel.org/pdf/NEDC-Construction-Contract-Spec.pdf.> Accessed: March 14, 2011. Planned Action Ordinance 11 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The following mitigation measures shall be used and air toxics concentrations in the homes, such to minimize air quality and odor issues caused by as the following: tailpipe emissions. o use of low-VOC [volatile organic compounds] Maintain the en ines of construction building materials and coatings, g equipment according to manufacturers' specifications. Minimize idling of equipment while the equipment is not in use. Where feasible, Applicants shall schedule haul traffic during off-peak times (e.g., between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.) to have the least effect on traffic and to minimize indirect increases in traffic related emissions. This shall be determined as part of traffic control plans required in Section 14 of this mitigation document. Burning of slash or demolition debris shall not be permitted without express approval from Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA). No slash burning is anticipated for any construction projects in the Planned Action Study Area. Greenhouse Cas Reduction Measures Please see text and Table 6 below. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures o enhanced building ventilation and room air filtration, and o installation of dust -free floor materials and low -pile carpeting to reduce dust buildup. Planned Action applicants for residential developments shall provide information regarding the feasibility and applicability of indoor air quality measures. The City may condition Planned Action applications to incorporate feasible indoor air quality measures. The City shall require development applicants to consider the reduction measures shown in Table 6 for their projects, and as part of their application explain what reduction measures are included and why other measures found in the table are not included or are not applicable. The City may condition Planned Action applications to incorporate feasible GHG reduction measures. Table 6. Potential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Reduction Measures Comments Site Design Plant trees and vegetation near structures to shade buildings. Minimize building footprint. Design water efficient landscaping. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity, and enhances carbon sinks. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity consumption, materials used, maintenance, land disturbance, and direct construction emissions. Minimizes water consumption, purchased energy, and upstream emissions from water management. Minimize energy use through building orientation. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity consumption. Building Design and Operations Construct buildings according to City of Seattle The City of Seattle code is more stringent than energy code. the current City of Renton building code. Planned Action Ordinance 12 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Reduction Measures Comments Apply Leadership in Energy and Environmental Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and Design (LEER) standards (or equivalent) for design off-site/indirect purchased electricity, water and operations. use, waste disposal. Purchase Energy Star equipment and appliances for Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and public agency use. purchased electricity consumption. Incorporate on-site renewable energy production, Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and including installation of photovoltaic cells or other purchased electricity consumption. solar options. Design street lights to use energy-efficient bulbs and fixtures. Construct "green roofs" and use high -albedo roofing materials. Install high -efficiency heating, ventilation, and air- conditioning (HVAC) systems. Eliminate or reduce use of refrigerants in HVAC systems. Reduces purchased electricity. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity consumption. Minimizes fuel combustion and purchased electricity consumption. Reduces fugitive emissions. Compare refrigerant usage before/after to determine GHG reduction. Maximize interior day lighting through floor plates, Increases natural/day lighting initiatives and increased building perimeter and use of skylights, reduces purchased electrical energy celestories, and light wells. consumption. Incorporate energy efficiency technology such as Reduces fuel combustion and purchased super insulation motion sensors for lighting and electricity consumption. climate-control -effcient, directed exterior lighting. Use water -conserving fixtures that surpass building Reduces water consumption. code requirements. Reuse gray water and/or collect and reuse rainwater. Use recycled building materials and products Use building materials that are extracted and/or manufactured within the region. Use rapidly renewable building materials. Conduct third -party building commissioning to ensure energy performance. Reduces water consumption with its indirect upstream electricity requirements. Reduces extraction of purchased materials, possibly reduces transportation of materials, encourages recycling and reduction of solid waste disposal. Reduces transportation of purchased materials. Reduces emissions from extraction of purchased materials. Reduces fuel combustion and purchased electricity consumption. Track energy performance of building and develop Reduces fuel combustion and purchased strategy to maintain efficiency. electricity consumption. Transportation Size parking capacity to not exceed local parking Reduced parking discourages auto -dependent requirements and, where possible, seek reductions travel, encouraging alternative modes such as in parking supply through special permits or transit, walking, and biking. Reduces direct and waivers. indirect VMT. Develop and implement a marketing/information Reduces direct and indirect VMT. program that includes posting and distribution of ridesharing/transit information. Planned Action Ordinance 13 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Reduction Measures Comments Subsidize transit passes. Reduce employee trips during peak periods through alternative work schedules, telecommuting, and/or flex time. Provide a guaranteed -ride -home program. Provide bicycle storage and showers/changing rooms. Use traffic signalization and coordination to improve traffic flow and support pedestrian and bicycle safety. Apply advanced technology systems and management strategies to improve operational efficiency of local streets. Develop shuttle systems around business district parking garages to reduce congestion and create shorter commutes. Reduces employee VMT. Reduces employee VMT. Reduces transportation emissions and VMT. Reduces emissions from transportation by minimizing idling and maximizing transportation routes/systems for fuel efficiency. Reduces idling fuel emissions and direct and indirect VMT. Source: Washington State Department of Ecology 2008b VMT = vehicle miles travelled. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations - General RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations 3. Water Resources Significant Impacts Table 7. Water Resources Significant Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Construction impacts on water resources would be addressed through compliance with Core Requirement #5 for Erosion and Sediment Control in the Renton Stormwater Manual and compliance with Ecology's NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit, if the project results in 1 acre or more of land -disturbing activity. Also see Section 1, Earth, above. Operations Same as Planned Action Study Area Water Quality and land Implementation of the green All untreated pollution -generating Planned Action Ordinance 14 Exhibit 8: Mitigation Document .Z Type of Impact Cover Indirect and Cumulative Planned Action Study Area connections and the NE Sunset Boulevard reconstruction project is estimated to result in a net reduction of approximately 14.7-15.7 acres of untreated pollution - generating impervious area and approximately 3.1-6.6 acres of effective impervious area. The operations analysis above presents cumulative impacts in terms of total impervious surfaces and potential water quantity and quality impacts, as well as indirect impacts on receiving water bodies outside of the study area. The Planned Action Alternatives would implement a drainage master plan and mitigation would be provided in advance through the self -mitigating public stormwater infrastructure features including a combination of green connections, regional stormwater flow control, and possible public-private partnership opportunities for retrofits. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea impervious surfaces within the subarea would be eliminated, resulting in a reduction of 1.83 acres of untreated pollution -generating surface from the Johns Creek Basin. The estimated change in effective impervious area would result in a decrease of approximately O.S1 acre (11%) to 1.07 acres (23%) compared to existing conditions. Same as the Planned Action Study area. In particular, the City proposes to construct a regional stormwater facility that would be designed to maintain active and open recreation space allowing water to be treated within a series of distributed of small integrated rain gardens along the edge of the proposed Sunset Terrace Park and connecting the subsurface to an underground infiltration bed beneath open space. This will mitigate impacts in the subarea as well as portions of the larger Planned Action Study Area. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None of the alternatives would have significant unavoidable adverse impacts on water resources, because the redevelopment would likely result in an improvement of runoff and recharge water quality. In addition, the net change in effective impervious area can be adequately mitigated through the self -mitigating features of the Planned Action alternatives and through implementation of the stormwater code, as described below. Mitigation Measures All of the alternatives would involve redevelopment and reduction of existing pollution -generating impervious surfaces in the Planned Action Study Area. In addition, per the requirements of the stormwater code, the redeveloped properties would be required to provide water quality treatment for all remaining pollution -generating impervious surfaces. The net reduction in untreated pollution -generating impervious surfaces throughout the study area is, therefore, considered to result in a net benefit to surface water quality. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are proposed. Each of the alternatives would result in a slight increase in the effective impervious area of the Planned Action Study Area. Planned Action Ordinance 15 Exhibit 8: Mitigation Document f Self mitigating features of the Planned Action Alternatives are listed below: Under Alternative 3, mitigation would be provided in advance or incrementally through the Self - mitigating public stormwater infrastructure features including a combination of green connections, regional stormwater flow control, and possible public-private partnership opportunities for retrofits. Conceptual design and planning of the public stormwater infrastructure would be developed under a drainage master plan for the Study Area. It could be developed in advance of (likely through grants or city funds) or incrementally as development occurs depending on opportunity costs of constructing the improvements. The extent and form of the public infrastructure projects would be refined through the drainage master plan development and further design. The goal under Alternative 3 would be to provide sufficient advance public infrastructure improvements to balance the anticipated increase in effective impervious area. This strategy would only require that future developments implement flow - control BMPs, but could eliminate on-site flow control through a development fee or similar funding structure to compensate for the off-site mitigation provided by the public infrastructure investment. • The Preferred Alternative mitigation would be similar to Alternative 3. Harrington Avenue NE, including portions of HE 16th and NE 9th streets, has been identified as a high priority Green Connection project. This corridor would be enhanced by narrowing through -traffic lanes to calm traffic, create wide planter areas to accommodate large trees and rain gardens to mitigate stormwater runoff, and create wider sidewalks. This project would be implemented as a public infrastructure retrofit project pending available funds. The remaining green connections projects would likely be implemented as revised roadway standards to require incremental redevelopment of the frontage as redevelopment occurs (constructed either by future developers or the City, depending on availability of funds). In addition to the Green Connections projects, the City will implement regional detention/retention improvements to provide advance mitigation for future increases in impervious area that could result from redevelopment. Locations of the regional facilities would include the western margin of the newly created park at Sunset Terrace and/or the northern corner of Highlands Park (beyond the outfield of the existing baseball/softball field). A drainage master pian will be developed for the Preferred Alternative. Planned Actions shall implement the City's adopted drainage master plan and be consistent with the City stormwater regulations in effect at the time of application. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations - General RMC 4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards Planned Action Ordinance 16 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document 4. Plants and Animals Significant Impacts Table S. Plants and Animals Significant Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Individual redevelopment Same as Planned Action Study Area projects would result in short- term loss of vegetation cover, along with noise and activity levels that would result in little or no use of the construction areas by wildlife during the period of construction. Redevelopment actions would be required to comply, during construction, with City regulations requiring temporary erosion and sedimentation controls to prevent water quality impacts from work site stormwater runoff. Operations Redevelopment activities that would be facilitated under the planned action ordinance would have a limited effect on plant or wildlife habitat in the Planned Action Study Area. New development being designed as Low Impact Development (LID) is likely to result in a measurable decline in total vegetated area, accompanied by a measurable improvement in plant diversity and quality of the remaining habitat. Green connections and urban forestry plans offset to some degree by greater redevelopment, the net result is likely to be a reduction in habitat connectivity and a decline in total vegetated area, albeit with some improvement in plant diversity and quality of the remaining habitat. Largely due to the absence of impacts on special -status species, effects on wildlife would be less than significant. Same as Planned Action Study Area Indirect Planned Action Alternatives Same as Planned Action Study Area Planned Action Ordinance 17 Exhibit S: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea would result in an indirect impact on plants and wildlife by contributing to a substantial increase in the human population within the area. This can be expected to result in effects such as increased wildlife mortality due to road kill and predation by pets, and reduced wildlife diversity due to increases in opportunistic species such as starlings, crows, and rats. These indirect impacts can be expected to result in reduced numbers, vigor, and diversity of plant and wildlife species. The stormwater commitments incorporated in Planned Action Alternatives would be sufficient to avoid substantial impacts on aquatic habitats and fish. Cumulative No impact No Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would occur for plants and animals under any alternative. Mitigation Measures With implementation of proposed stormwater features or standards, no mitigation is required. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations - General RMC 4-4-130 Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations Planned Action Ordinance 18 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document 5. Energy Significant Impacts Table 9. Energy Significant impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction During construction, energy would be consumed by demolition and reconstruction activities. These activities would include the manufacture of construction materials, transport of construction materials to and from the construction site, and operation of machinery during demolition and construction. Operations Energy Usage: Study Area The annual energy usage is and Subarea estimated at 255,845 to 275,529 million British thermal units (Btu). Indirect and Cumulative Energy Usage: Subarea, With high levels of transit - Study Area, and Region oriented and high-density development the Planned Action Alternatives would provide the greatest estimated regional energy usage reduction for the study area compared to the No Action Alternative: 26,383 to 29,194 million Btu. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Same as Planned Action Study Area The annual energy usage is estimated at 21,338 to 43,654 million British thermal units (Btu). With high levels of transit -oriented and high-density development the Planned Action Alternatives would provide the greatest estimated regional energy usage reduction for the subarea compared to the No Action Alternative: 1,145 to 3,624 million Btu. Additional energy would be consumed and would contribute to increases in demand associated with the growth and development of the region. As described in the Utilities Element of the City Comprehensive Plan, it is anticipated that existing and planned infrastructure of affected energy utilities could accommodate growth. Energy conservation features would be incorporated into building design as required by the current City building codes. For the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, HUD encourages public housing authorities such as RHA to use Energy Star, renewable energy, and green construction practices in public housing. As such, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts on energy use are anticipated. Planned Action Ordinance i9 Exhibit S: Mitigation Document Mitigation Measures Table 10. Energy Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Although the growth and development would In addition to the mitigation measures described for result in increased energy demand in the the Planned Action Study Area, according to the King Planned Action Study Area under all of the County proposed GHG reduction regulation, energy alternatives, expanding the beneficial transit- reductions can be provided with the implementation oriented development and high-density of the following basic requirements of the American housing development within the study area Society of Heating, Refrigerating andAir-Conditioning would reduce regional energy usage. Engineers Advanced Buildings Core Performance Guide Therefore, all alternatives would provide a for residential and non-residential building in the net benefit rather than adverse impact with subarea: regards to energy usage. However, to further 30% energy reduction for residential dwelling reduce energy consumption, the City shall that are 50% of average size; and 15% energy encourage future developers to implement reduction for residential dwelling that are 75% of additional trip -reduction measures and average size, and energy conservation measures. For example, energy and GHG reductions can be achieved . 12% energy reduction for office, school, retail, through implementation of the following and public assembly buildings that are smaller energy conservation techniques or equivalent than 100,000 square feet in floor area. approaches. An energy reduction of 12% can be achieved by implementing sufficient strategies established by the Northwest Energy Star Homes program for multifamily residential buildings. The Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes program (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010) is designed to help builders construct energy-efficient homes in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana to meet energy -efficiency guidelines set forth by the EPA. An energy reduction of 10% would comply with Seattle Energy Code for non- residential buildings. See also Air Quality mitigation measures. The City shall require development applicants to consider trip -reduction measures and energy conservation, and as part of their application explain what reduction measures are included and which ones are not included (based on that are part of Table 6 or Table 10). The City may condition Planned Action applications to incorporate feasible trip reduction and energy conservation measures. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Planned Action Ordinance 20 Exhibit 6: Mitigation Document RMC 4-5-051 Washington State Energy Code Adopted 6. Noise Significant Impacts Table 11. Noise Significant Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Development in the study area Same as Planned Action Study would require demolition and Area construction activity, which would temporarily increase noise levels at residences close to the development site. This type of activity could cause annoyance and speech interference at outdoor locations adjacent to the construction sites, and could cause discernible noise. Operations Noise from New Commercial Operations Indirect and Cumulative Noise from Increased Traffic: Proposal with Future Traffic Levels Unless properly controlled, mechanical equipment (e.g., rooftop air conditioning units) and trucks at loading docks of office and retail buildings in the study area could cause ambient noise levels at nearby residential housing units to exceed the City noise ordinance limits. For most residents adjacent to roadways in the study area, increased traffic would result in the greatest increase in ambient noise levels, caused by moving traffic and vehicles idling at intersections. Development would result in noise increase from vehicles traveling on NE Sunset Boulevard and local streets. Same as Planned Action Study Area Development would result in noise increase from vehicles traveling on NE Sunset Boulevard and local streets 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 Planned Action ordinance 21 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea the criterion under Planned Action Alternatives. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse construction or operational traffic noise impacts are anticipated in the Planned Action Study Area with the implementation of mitigation measures noted below. No significant unavoidable adverse traffic noise impacts are anticipated at residences along NE Sunset Boulevard in the Planned Action Study Area per WSDOT criteria, because the noise increase caused by NE Sunset Boulevard traffic is less than the WSDOT "substantial increase" impact threshold. 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. Mitigation Measures Table 12. Noise Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Noise Mitigation measures described in the Planned To reduce construction noise at nearby Action Study Area would also apply to this receivers, the following mitigation measures subarea. shall be incorporated by Planned Action Site design approaches shall be incorporated to applicants into construction plans and reduce potential noise impacts including the contractor specifications. following. • Locate stationary equipment away from receiving properties. • Erect portable noise barriers around loud stationary equipment located near sensitive receivers. • Limit construction activities to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. to avoid sensitive nighttime hours. • Turn off idling construction equipment. • Require contractors to rigorously maintain all equipment. Train construction crews to avoid unnecessarily loud actions (e.g., dropping bundles of rebar onto the ground or dragging steel plates across pavement) near noise -sensitive areas. Concentrating park and open space uses are away from NE Sunset Boulevard. Where park and open space uses must be located near NE Sunset Boulevard, avoiding activities that require easily understood conversation (e.g., instructional classes), or other uses where quiet conditions are required for the primary function of the activity. Allowing for balconies on exterior facing units only if they do not open to a bedroom. According to HUD noise guidebook, noise attenuation from various building materials are calculated using sound transmission class (STC) rating. Although the standard construction approaches can normally achieve the STC rating of more than 24 dBA as demonstrated in Final EIS New Commercial Operation Noise Appendix E, the City shall require a STC rating of 30 dBA reduction for these first row residential The City shall require all prospective future Planned Action Ordinance 22 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea developers to use low -noise mechanical dwellings because the HUD noise guidebook shows equipment adequate to ensure compliance with that the sound reduction achieved by different the City's daytime and nighttime noise ordinance techniques may be a little optimistic -3.. limits where commercial uses are abutting residential uses and where there is a potential to exceed noise ordinance limits. Depending on the nature of the proposed development, the City shall require the developer to conduct a noise impact study to forecast future noise levels and to specify appropriate noise control measures. Compliance with the noise ordinance would ensure this potential impact would not be significant Traffic Noise Mitigation Although traffic noise is exempt from City noise ordinance, based on site-specific considerations, the City may at its discretion require the new development to install double -pane glass windows or other building insulation measures using its authority under the Washington State Energy Code (RMC 4-S-040). Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations - General RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations RMC Title 8 Chapter 7 Noise level Regulations 7. Environmental Health Significant Impacts Table 13. Environmental Health Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Potential construction impacts Existing subsurface include releasing existing contaminations have not been contaminants to the environment identified on the redevelopable by ground -disturbing or properties and, therefore, are not dewatering activities, expected to be encountered encountering underground during construction. Hazardous storage tanks (USTs) or leaking building materials such as lead- USTs, generating hazardous based paint and asbestos - building materials that require containing materials (ACMs) 3 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." Planned Action ordinance 23 I Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea special disposal, and accidentally releasing hazardous substances. Operations If development occurs on contaminated sites, where appropriate clean-up measures were not completed or residual contaminations were present, then there is a potential risk to public health for people using the site. Indirect No impact could be generated from demolition of the existing Sunset Terrace buildings. If there are lead-based paints or ACMs at the complex, appropriate permits and precautions would be required. Accidental release of hazardous substances during construction could still occur as in all construction projects. No impact No impact Cumulative No impact No impact Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are identified at the programmatic level throughout the Planned Study Area or for the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea for any of the studied alternatives. Contaminated sites would be avoided during project design when possible; implementing the mitigation approaches described below would minimize or eliminate adverse effects on human health and the environment. Mitigation Measures Table 14. Environmental Health Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Since encountering unreported spills or unreported underground fuel tanks is a risk when performing construction, contractors shall be required to provide hazardous materials awareness training to all grading and excavation crews on how to identify any suspected contaminated soil or groundwater, and how to alert supervisors in the event of suspected contaminated material. Signs of potential contaminated soil include stained soil, odors, oily sheen, or the presence of debris. Contractors shall be required to implement a contingency plan to identify, segregate, and dispose of hazardous waste in full The construction and operation mitigation measures identified for the Planned Action Study Area are applicable to the subarea. Planned Action Ordinance 24 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document 9 I Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea accordance with the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA)(WAC 173-340) and the Dangerous Waste (WAC 173-303) regulations. Contractors shall be required to develop and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, BMPs, and other permit conditions to minimize the potential for a release of hazardous materials to soil, groundwater, or surface water during construction. Contractors shall be required to follow careful construction practices to protect against hazardous materials spills from routine equipment operation during construction; prepare and maintain a current spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan, and have an individual on site designated as an emergency coordinator; and understand and use proper hazardous materials storage and handling procedures and emergency procedures, including proper spill notification and response requirements. • All asbestos -containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint will be identified in r structures prior to demolition activities in accordance with 24 CFR Part 35. If ACM or lead-based paint is identified, appropriately trained and licensed personnel will contain, remove, and properly dispose of the ACM and/or lead-based paint material according to federal and state regulations prior to demolition of the affected area. • If warranted, contractors shall conduct additional studies to locate undocumented underground storage tank (USTs) and fuel lines before construction of specific development projects (areas of concern include current and former commercial and residential structures) and will permanently decommission and properly remove USTs from project sites before I commencing general construction j activities. • Prior to acquisition of known or potentially contaminated property, the City shall require appropriate due diligence be performed to identify the presence and extent of soil or Lroundwater Planned Action ordinance 25 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea contamination. This can help to prevent or manage liabilities for any long-term clean- up activities that might be ongoing during project operations. if contamination is discovered, the project proponent will comply with all state and federal regulations for contaminated sites. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations - General RMC Title 4 Chapter 5 Building and Fire Prevention Standards 8. land Use Significant Impacts Table 15. Land Use Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction The incremental nature of Same as Planned Action Study development over the planning Area period would minimize the number of nearby residents exposed to temporary construction impacts including dust emissions, noise, construction traffic, and sporadic interference with access to adjacent residences and businesses. Operations Land Use Patterns Planned Action Alternatives would provide more than 2,300 to 2,500 dwelling units and 1.2 to 1.3 million square feet of commercial space compared to existing conditions. Redevelopment would provide more commercial development than residential development This alternative would also provide more than two times as many residential dwellings as currently exist in the study area. Planned Action Alternatives would provide about 266-479 more dwelling units than existing conditions in a mixed-use development that integrates commercial and civic spaces. Plans and Policies Planned Action Alternatives Planned Action Alternatives provide the greatest degree of provide the greatest degree of Planned Action Ordinance 26 Exhibit B: Mitigation 6ocumert s du Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Indirect and Cumulative consistency among the alternatives with the City Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, and policies by implementing the development types envisioned in the City's land use and zoning designations within the study area. Anticipated growth would help the City meet its 2031 housing and employment targets. Public investments would need to be accounted for in amendments to the City's Transportation and Capital Facilities elements. No indirect or cumulative land use impacts are anticipated outside the study area. The City applies its policies and development regulations to create a planned land use pattern. Density is most intense at the center of the study area and least along its boundaries with single- family residential land use patterns; it is unlikely to alter patterns or plans along the edges of the study area. The City will, as part of its regular comprehensive plan review and amendment updates, control the monitoring, evaluation, and amendment process. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts consistency with the City's land use element goals and policies of all alternatives by promoting the redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community. It also does more than other alternatives to develop the Center Village. Development in the subarea under this alternative has a similar consistency as the study area for other City goals and policies, providing a greater degree of consistency with those goals and policies than other alternatives. Redevelopment of the subarea under this alternative would serve as an incentive for other redevelopment opportunities near the study area. Although intensification of land uses in the Planned Action Study Area, including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, would occur and density would increase, this change would be consistent with applicable plans, zoning, and land use character. Plan consistency can be addressed by Comprehensive Plan amendments using the City's Iegislative process. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse impacts. Mitigation Measures Table 16. Land Use Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Under all alternatives, the City shall require Construction mitigation would be the same as planned action applicants to implement described under the Planned Action Study Area. appropriate construction mitigation measures, The City and RHA should coordinate on future including but not limited to dust control and Planned Action ordinance 27 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document It. Planned Action Study Area construction traffic management. The City should make efforts to minimize property acquisition that affects buildings as part of its refinement of study area streetscape designs while balancing Complete Streets principles. As part of the Planned Action Ordinance adoption process, the City should amend its Comprehensive Plan's Transportation and Capital Facilities elements to ensure that planned public investments and their funding sources are accounted for and programmed. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Sunset Terrace redevelopment and Planned Action Study Area streetscape improvements to ensure that property acquisition that affects buildings is minimized. 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 Iandscape 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. RMC Title 4 Chapter 2 Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards 9. Socioeconomics Significant Impacts Table 17. Socioeconomics Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Construction activities could The demolition of the Sunset temporarily increase congestion Terrace complex to allow for the and reduce parking, local access subarea redevelopment would for businesses and residents, and require the relocation of the access near the construction tenants. activities, which could negatively Moreover, the relocation of the affect businesses; however, tenants could affect some local businesses located close to businesses during construction if construction activities could experience an increase in revenue from spending by construction workers. the tenants are relocated outside of the immediate area; however, since the total number of relocations represents a small portion of the overall population any impact would likely be small in scale. Operations The higher number of dwelling The Planned Action Alternatives units and jobs would result in would increase dwelling units and greater intensities in development jobs by 266-479 net dwelling Planned Action Ordinance 28 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Indirect Cumulative and economic benefits. Improvements in the streetscape along NE Sunset Boulevard and the other civic and infrastructure improvements would make the study area more desirable to investment, which could lead to additional opportunities for employment as more businesses are attracted to the study area. The facilities that would be added under Alternative 3 include a family village and a wider reconstruction of NE Sunset Boulevard. The family village would include housing, education, recreation, and supportive services that would be designed to promote a healthy and walkable neighborhood. Construction spending would result in positive indirect effects on the economic elements of employment and income in the study area and the regional economy as businesses that support the construction effort would likely see increased spending. The additional public and private investment and associated economic benefits would be greater due to the increased spending. Cumulative effects would be positive with the addition of new development that would continue to enhance the area and continue to improve the neighborhood vitality. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts units and 79- 117 jobs. The subarea would be developed with new park, street, and civic improvements that would promote a healthy and walkable neighborhood. Increased spending is anticipated with the mixture of affordable and market -rate units, which would result in positive impacts on the businesses in the area as well as local tax revenues. As the area changes and new housing is provided, no existing public units would be lost and improvements in the neighborhood would Iikely continue as new developments are constructed. No long-term significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Planned Action alternatives would encourage new development in the both the Planned Action Study Area and the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea that would result in beneficial changes to the socioeconomic conditions. Under Planned Action Alternatives, relocation of the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would result in short-term impacts; however, these impacts would be mitigated. The creation of new jobs Planned Action Ordinance 29 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document and spending in the subarea during construction of new developments would result in short-term benefits. Mitigation Measures Table 18. Socioeconomics Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Mitigation measures to minimize dust, noise, In addition to mitigation measures described for aesthetics, and transportation impacts during the Planned Action Study Area, the following construction are identified in Sections 2, 6, 12, mitigation measures apply: and 14, respectively, of this Mitigation Document. . Public housing tenants shall be provided These measures would address many of the relocation assistance under the Uniform construction -related impacts that could Relocation Act negatively affect the study area businesses. , RHA should consider phased demolition and In addition, with the reconstruction of NE Sunset Boulevard, or with any new development, if access to businesses is affected, the following measures should be addressed by the City or WSDOT: Provide detour, open for business, and other signage, as appropriate. • Provide business cleaning services on a case- by-case basis, as needed. • Establish promotions or marketing measures to help affected businesses maintain their customer base during construction. Maintain access, as much as possible, to each business and, if access needs to be limited, coordinate with the affected businesses. Mitigation measures to address indirect impacts on housing affordability are addressed in Section 10 of this Mitigation Document. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan 10. Housing Significant Impacts Table 19. Housing Impacts reconstruction to minimize the need to relocate all the residents at the same time, or the new affordable housing development could be constructed prior to demolition to provide opportunities to relocate tenants within the subarea. Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Construction of commercial, Construction of residential and residential, and civic uses in the civic uses would create temporary study area would create noise, dust, and construction temporary noise, dust, and traffic, which would affect Planned Action Ordinance 30 Exhibit 8: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea construction traffic, which would adjacent residents to the subject affect current residents. properties. Operations Indirect Cumulative The Planned Action Alternatives assume 40% of the study area acreage would infill or redevelop. This would result in the greatest number of dwellings replaced at 299. The Planned Action Alternatives would add up to approximately 2,339 to 2,507 new dwellings. In the study area there is a potential for additional market rate dwellings as well as affordable and public dwellings. Most new units would be multifamily. Increased housing could increase local resident spending at businesses in the study area, and could also create an increased demand for parks and recreation, public services, and utilities. Growth in the study area would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and would contribute to meeting growth targets for the City's next Comprehensive Plan Update for the year 2 03 1. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts In this subarea, 110 public housing and duplex dwellings would be eliminated. There would be a 1:1 replacement of public housing units on site and in the Planned Action Study Area. The number of units added would be 266-479 above existing dwellings, for a total of 376-589 units. About three quarters of the units would be affordable or public, and another approximate quarter would be market -rate dwelling units. The potential for residents to help support local businesses as well as to create a demand for services is similar to the Planned Action Study Area. The support of the new dwellings to assist the City in meeting growth targets is similar to the Planned Action Study Area. Housing in the Planned Action Study Area would likely redevelop to some degree to take advantage of adopted plans and zoning. However, the alternatives would allow for the construction of new dwelling units to replace those that are eliminated. Lower-cost housing could be replaced with more costly housing. Implementation of City regulatory incentives and use of federal, state, and local housing funds and programs could reduce potential affordability impacts. Through its regular Comprehensive Plan review cycles, the City could monitor housing trends in the neighborhood and adapt measures to promote affordability. During construction and in the short-term, residents would be subject to construction activities and the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would be required to relocate during demolition and construction. However, relocation assistance mitigation measures for RHA units would mitigate impacts. Planned Action ordinance 31 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Mitigation Measures Table 20. Housing Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-4-030(C) identifies construction hours intended to address noise in sensitive time periods. See Section b, Noise, of this Mitigation Document regarding other noise mitigation measures for construction periods. When federal funds are being used for a proposal, displaced tenants shall be offered relocation assistance in compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended. The City and RHA should apply for federal, state, and local funding programs described in Draft EIS Section 3.10, Housing, to promote new housing opportunities for low and very low-income housing. RHA should establish a local preference for rental assistance. For example, RHA could establish a priority list for Section 8 vouchers for displaced low-income tenants in the Planned Action Study Area (in addition to the relocation assistance to be provided by RHA to the Sunset Terrace residents). Unit replacement and relocation assistance for the family village would be the same as described for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Construction mitigation would be as described for the Planned Action Study Area. AHA has committed to replacement housing for the Sunset Terrace public housing units at a 1:1 ratio, consistent with the existing proportion of units by number of bedrooms. Such replacement housing could occur on site and/or off site. During the time replacement housing is under construction, Section 8 vouchers, or equivalent measures, shall be used to relocate tenants. RMC Title 4 Chapter 2 Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations - General 11. Environmental Justice Significant Impacts Table 21. Environmental Justice Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Residents near construction The demolition of the Sunset activities would likely be affected Terrace complex and construction by temporary noise, dust, and of the proposed conceptual plans visual impacts due to would require the relocation of Planned Action Ordinance 32 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Operations Indirect construction; these impacts would be short-term in nature. The population of the study area is predominately non -minority and non -low-income and any negative impacts would likely occur on these populations to a greater degree than the minority and low- income populations. Residential, commercial, and recreational development and civic and infrastructure improvements under Planned Action Alternatives would improve the overall neighborhood, making it a more cohesive and desirable place to live for all populations in the community, including minority and low-income populations. The family village would be beneficial for all populations in the Planned Action Study Area, but these benefits could accrue to a greater degree for minority and low-income populations due to the close proximity, especially for those without access to a vehicle. The introduction of new retail and commercial space within the study area would increase employment opportunities. These opportunities would benefit all study area populations, but could benefit minority and Iow-income populations to a greater degree. The Planned Action Alternatives would increase the variety of residential unit types and affordability levels would reduce the concentration of low-income households in the subarea, and thereby reduce or eliminate some of the social consequences of such concentrations. the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex likely through Section 8 vouchers. Because the tenants are low-income and predominately minority, this would constitute a greater impact on these populations than other populations. Planned Action Alternatives would have a number of beneficial effects on minority and low- income populations in the subarea, including the redevelopment of the existing dwelling units, construction of additional units, transportation improvements, and the addition of other community facilities (i.e., senior day health, library, parks). These changes would result in improvements to public health and to the aesthetics of the area. These would all improve community cohesion for subarea residents. Housing types and affordability would be more varied. New retail and commercial space wand provide new employment opportunities could be seen as more beneficial to subarea residents who may be unemployed or not have a their own vehicle and would, therefore, benefit more from the proximity. Cumulative Cumulative impacts would Adverse impacts are not primarily be beneficial. As the anticipated. New dwelling units area continues to redevelop with would be affordable, public, and new investments, public and market -rate units. The beneficial private, it would become more cumulative impacts identified desirable for the residents and under the Planned Action Study Planned Action Ordinance 33 Exhibit 8: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea would continue to create new Area would be similar. jobs. The new development and addition of more market -rate units could cause the study area to become less affordable to lower-income populations, which could result in these populations needing to relocate outside of the study area. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There are no long-term significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to environmental justice. The Planned Action alternatives would result in primarily beneficial impacts associated with new dwelling units, new civic facilities and parks, improvements in nonmotorized transportation, and new employment opportunities in the surrounding area. During construction and in the short-term residents would be subject to construction activities and the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would be required to relocate during demolition and construction. However, construction mitigation and relocation assistance mitigation measures (for the RHA units) would minimize impacts. Mitigation Measures Table 22. Environmental Justice Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea There are no specific mitigation measures related Mitigation measures during construction include to environmental justice during construction or the need for replacement housing for the operation. During construction, mitigation residents of Sunset Terrace. It is likely that the measures related to noise, dust, traffic congestion, tenants would be relocated under a potential and visual quality shall be applicable to all Section 8 voucher strategy during construction. populations. These measures are described in See Section 9, Socioeconomics, of this Mitigation Sections 2, 6, 12, and 14, respectively, of this Document. Mitigation Document Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations — General 12. Aesthetics Significant Impacts Table 23. Aesthetic Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Ordinance 34 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Construction Operations Visual Character Height and Bulk Planned Action Study Area The demolition of existing structures and construction of new buildings would expose nearby residents to visual impacts, including dust, the presence of construction equipment, stockpiles of construction materials, localized increases in vehicular traffic, and on-site construction activities. For each alternative, these activities would occur sporadically at various locations throughout the Planned Action Study Area, would be localized to the construction site, and would be temporary in nature. The extensive public investment under the Planned Action Alternatives would result in widespread changes to the visual character of the Planned Action Study Area affecting about 40% of parcel acres. Private development would take full advantage of the current development regulations, resulting in a transition to a mixed-use, pedestrian -oriented neighborhood. The application of adopted design standards as new construction gradually replaces older buildings would result in an overall improvement of the visual environment in the Planned Action Study Area. The subarea would experience moderate increases in height and bulk over existing conditions. Heights would range from two to four stories, and buildings would generally be located closer to the street than undercurrent conditions. The tallest building heights under the Preferred Alternative would occur on property zoned Center Village. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Same as Planned Action Study Area The visual character of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would change from its current state to a pedestrian -oriented community with a mix of residential, ground - floor commercial, and community uses linked by public spaces and landscaped pedestrian pathways. The Preferred Alternative concept would focus less residential development in the subarea than Alternative 3, making room for a larger neighborhood park. Building height and bulk within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would range from one to four stories. The Preferred Alternative, however, would provide much more park space than Alternative 3, providing a sense of openness to the Sunset Terrace site. In addition, buildings on the site would be arranged to place 2 - story townhomes adjacent to the park and taller multifamily residential buildings aloniz NE Planned Action Ordinance 35 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Shade and Shadow Indirect/ Cumulative Because heights in the Planned Action Study Area would generally increase, shading effects would also become more pronounced, though only to a moderate degree. Increased building heights within the Planned Action Study Area could result in increased shading of pedestrian areas and public spaces, particularly along NE Sunset Boulevard, which is likely to see some of the most intense commercial and mixed- use development. While redevelopment of the public facilities discussed under the various alternatives would be a coherent effort, private development throughout the study area would occur piecemeal. Individual private developments are likely to be of higher density, greater height, and a different architectural style than existing development, and have the potential to create temporary aesthetic conflicts where they are located adjacent to older structures. Over time, as more properties redevelop, the temporary conflicts would be less frequent and less noticeable. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Sunset Boulevard. Taller buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard would cast longer shadows on the interior of the subarea to the north, potentially shading sidewalks along Sunset Lane NE. Dependent on final design, building may potentially shade sidewalks along Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE at various times of the day. With the Preferred Alternative, the increased size of the central park, as well as the placement of 2 -story townhomes adjacent to the park, reduces the potential for adverse shading effects compared to Alternative 3. Redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace housing facility would be a localized action, but additional private development is anticipated to occur in response to this public investment, and each private development project would contribute to the overall transformation of the area's aesthetic character. With the application of adopted development regulations and recommended mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Table 24. Aesthetic Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea In both the Planned Action Study Area and Potential See Planned Action Study Area. Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, mitigation Planned Action Ordinance 36 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea measures will be necessary to minimize impacts associated with increased height, bulk, and shading. Future development occurring under any of the alternatives shall conform to the Renton Municipal Code design standards, including but not limited to the following: . Urban design standards contained in RMC 4-3- 100, . Residential Design and Open Space Standards contained in RMC 4-2-115, and . Lighting Standards contained in AMC 4-4-075. As described in RMC 4-3-100133, portions of the Planned Action Study Area do not currently lie within an established Urban Design District, most notably those properties north of NE 16th Street and west of Kirkland Avenue NE, where the family village proposed under the Planned Action Alternatives would be located. To ensure that future redevelopment exhibits quality urban design, the City should consider either including this area in Design District D or creating a new design district for this purpose. Prior to the enactment of new design standards, the City may condition development north of NE 16th Street to meet appropriate standards of Design District D in RMC 4- 3-100. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC Title 4 Chapter 2 Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards RMC 4-3-100 Urban Design Regulations RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site 13. Historic/Cultural Significant Impacts Table 25. Historic/Cultural Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Typical project impacts that could No significant cultural resources disrupt or adversely affect are known to exist in the Potential cultural resources in the Planned Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Action Study Area include Subarea. demolition, removal, or substantial alteration without Planned Action ordinance 37 Exhibit S: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea consideration of historic and archaeological sites and/or features. Operations, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts Development could occur on or near parcels in the Planned Action Study Area that contain previously identified or unknown cultural resources. This development would likely involve ground disturbance and modifications to buildings and structures, which could result in a potentially significant impact on cultural resources. Because of the potential to impact unknown cultural resources, a detailed review of potential impacts on cultural resources would be required on a project -specific basis. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Future development in the subarea would have no impact any known National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible archaeological or historic resources, and the likelihood of impacts on unknown cultural resources is considered low. The impacts on cultural resources caused by new development associated with any alterative could be significant and unavoidable, depending on the nature and proximity of the proposed development project. Implementation of mitigation measures set forth in Draft EIS Section 4.13.2 as amended in the Final EIS would identify potential impacts on cultural resources, at which point measures to reduce them to less than significant could be taken. Mitigation Measures Table 26. Historic/Cultural Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea In the event that a proposed development site within the study area contains a building at least 50 -years of age that is not listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or Washington Heritage Register (WHR), the project shall be required to undergo review to determine if the property is considered eligible for listing. It is recommended that the City adopt a historic preservation ordinance that considers the identification and treatment of historic resources listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP or WHR, or locally designated. Until such time an ordinance is Since no native "A" horizon was identified at the Edmonds -Glenwood site and throughout the Sunset Terrace public housing complex, no further archaeological investigations are recommended for these areas. Although a buried, native "A" horizon was identified on RHA's Piha site (east of Harrington Avenue NE), the potential for an archaeological discovery is very low. The project should proceed with no further archaeological investigations. If archaeological materials are discovered during ground disturbing excavations, the contractor shall halt excavations in the vicinity of the find and contact DAHP. If human skeletal remains are discovered, or if during excavation archaeological materials are Planned Action ordinance 38 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea adopted, the City must enter into consultation with DAHP regarding potential impacts on historic resources in the study area that are listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP or WHR. For future projects that involve significant excavation in the study area the City must enter into consultation with Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) to determine the likelihood of and recommendations for addressing potential archaeological resources. It may be necessary to complete archaeological testing prior to significant excavation in the study area, such as digging for footings or utilities. Archaeological project monitoring maybe recommended for subsurface excavation and construction in high probability areas. In the event that a future development project in the study area is proposed on or immediately surrounding a site containing an archaeological resource, the potential impacts on the archaeological resource must be considered and, if needed, a study conducted by a qualified archaeologist to determine whether the project would materially impact the archaeological resource. If the project would disturb an archaeological resource, the City shall impose any and all measures to avoid or substantially lessen the impact. If avoidance of the archaeological resource is not possible, an appropriate research design must be developed and implemented with full data recovery of the archaeological resource prior to the development project. The avoidance of archaeological resources through selection of project alternatives and changes in design of project features in the specific area of the affected resource(s) would eliminate the need for measuring or mitigating impacts. Non -site-specific mitigation could include developing an educational program, interpretive displays, and design guidelines that focus on compatible materials, and professional publications. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan uncovered, the proponent will immediately stop work and notify agencies as outlined in the Unanticipated Discovery Plan provided in Draft EIS Appendix J and as amended by Final EIS Chapter 4 (and provided as Attachment 1 of this Exhibit i3). If the project would disturb an archaeological resource, the City shall impose any and all measures to avoid or substantially lessen the impact. If avoidance of the archaeological resource is not possible, an appropriate research design must be developed and implemented with full data recovery of the archaeological resource prior to the development project. The avoidance of archaeological resources through selection of project alternatives and changes in design of project features in the specific area of the affected resource(s) would eliminate the need for measuring or mitigating impacts. Planned Action Ordinance 39 Exhibit 8: Mitigation Document 14. Transportation Significant Impacts Table 27. Transportation Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Potential impacts that could result Same as Planned Action Study from construction activities Area include increased traffic volumes, increased delays, detour routes, and road closures. Lane closures in both directions of NE Sunset Boulevard could be required during construction roadway improvements associated with the Planned Action Alternatives. This reduction in capacity would likely increase travel times, and may force reroutes through local streets. Operations Traffic Operations At Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street LOS F conditions are predicted in both 2015 and 2030. At Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street LOS F conditions are expected in 2030. Transit At both Edmonds Avenue NE and at NE 10th Street, expanded bus zones in both directions of travel would provide larger waiting areas for transit users and would be conveniently located near residential or retail land uses. Bus zones and existing bus stops could include shelters with adequate lighting and street furniture. Nonmotorized Planned Action Alternatives include improved nonmotorized facilities such as bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and marked crosswalks. Design elements such as bike route signage, bike storage lockers, and bicycle detection at signalized intersections are included to promote bike ridership and safety. The Preferred Alternative includes a 5 -foot -wide eastbound Delay times in the subarea could worsen slightly due to the increase in trips generated, but intersections would likely operate better than the LOS D threshold. Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Planned Action Study Area Planned Action Ordinance 40 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area bicycle lane, rather than bicycle lanes in both directions (as in Alternative 3). Sidewalk connections from NE Sunset Boulevard to side streets would be improved, strengthening the connectivity between the residential areas and NE Sunset Boulevard. To improve safety for pedestrians crossing the roadways, the Preferred Alternative includes special paving at crosswalks and intersections. Sustainability The Planned Action Alternatives score a minimum of 3 3 with a maximum of up to 99 out of 118 points in the Greenroads metric; therefore, the alternatives meet the minimum Greenroads certification level and could achieve the highest level of certification. Indirect and Cumulative The Planned Action Alternatives score most strongly in the "Access and Equity" section of the Greenroads evaluation, as improving access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users are important elements of this alternative. The Planned Action Alternatives typically include higher levels of improvements or higher quality of improvements such as wider sidewalks, wider planting areas, and special paving. Growth would increase in comparison to Comprehensive Plan land use estimates; however, the Planned Action Alternatives' operational analysis is based on a model that addresses growth cumulatively on the City's current and planned roadway system and any operational deficiencies can be mitigated to meet City of Renton thresholds. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Planned Action Study Area Planned Action Ordinance 41 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The alternatives are expected to contribute to a cumulative increase in traffic volumes within the study area, which could degrade some roadway operations. The increase in traffic volumes due to activities in the study area is considered unavoidable, but the roadway operation and LOS can be mitigated to meet applicable LOS standards. Mitigation Measures Table 28. Transportation Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea Operational Mitigation Planned Action applicants shall pay a Transportation Impact Fee as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment, payable to the City as specified in the Renton Municipal Code. Planned Action applicants shall implement transportation mitigation measures identified below when required to meet concurrency management regulations in RMC 4-6-070 Transportation Concurrency Requirements: . 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 No permanent mitigation measures are recommended within Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. The intersection operations under action alternatives are expected to be within the LOS D threshold. During construction, mitigation measures are those described for the Planned Action Study Area. Flaggers, advance warning signage to alert motorists of detours or closures, and reduced speed zones would likely benefit traffic operations. Planned Action Ordinance 42 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea construction. Motorists may be able to adjust schedules and routes to avoid 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. Nexus Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards Planned Action Ordinance 43 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document 15. Parks and Recreation Significant Impacts Table 29. Parks and Recreation Impacts Operations Indirect Although there is an increase in community park acreage there would continue to be a deficiency in neighborhood and community park acreage in the Planned Action Study Area. Deficiencies are less than for the Preferred Alternative than Alternative 3 which has a similar population but less proposed park facilities. Ballfield and sport court LOS standards are applied citywide; thus a lack of such facilities within the Planned Action Study Area or the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea does not indicate an LOS deficiency. NE Sunset Boulevard would be improved to include bike lanes, intersection improvements, and sidewalks, providing a more walkable corridor and more direct access between residential areas and park land Indirect impacts are expected to mostly fall on the City's regional and communitywide parks and recreation facilities. For example, as the population increases in the Planned Action Study Area, there will be a growing deficiency of Neighborhood and Community Parks. Due to proximity, those demands would likely be displaced to nearby regional facilities such as Gene Coulon Parkas well as in surrounding communities. With Alternative 3, portions of Harrington Avenue NE right-of- way within the subarea would be converted to 0.25 acres of passive open space. Under the Preferred Alternative, Sunset Court Park would be relocated to the Sunset Terrace Subarea. Additionally, this park would be expanded from 0.5 acres to 2.6S acres and would have a vacation of Harrington Avenue NE similar to Alternative 3. This increases the acreage in neighborhood park land for this subarea and the Planned Action Study Area. Additionally, a library would be constructed in the subarea. Facility deficiencies in this subarea would also likely lead to spillover demand for active playfields for team sports in other parts of Renton as well as in surrounding communities. Planned Action Ordinance 44 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Construction could temporarily No parks and recreation facilities disrupt pedestrian access to exist in this subarea and no existing park properties. Active construction impacts are construction sites also represent anticipated. opportunities for creative play and attractive adventure for young people in the community. Operations Indirect Although there is an increase in community park acreage there would continue to be a deficiency in neighborhood and community park acreage in the Planned Action Study Area. Deficiencies are less than for the Preferred Alternative than Alternative 3 which has a similar population but less proposed park facilities. Ballfield and sport court LOS standards are applied citywide; thus a lack of such facilities within the Planned Action Study Area or the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea does not indicate an LOS deficiency. NE Sunset Boulevard would be improved to include bike lanes, intersection improvements, and sidewalks, providing a more walkable corridor and more direct access between residential areas and park land Indirect impacts are expected to mostly fall on the City's regional and communitywide parks and recreation facilities. For example, as the population increases in the Planned Action Study Area, there will be a growing deficiency of Neighborhood and Community Parks. Due to proximity, those demands would likely be displaced to nearby regional facilities such as Gene Coulon Parkas well as in surrounding communities. With Alternative 3, portions of Harrington Avenue NE right-of- way within the subarea would be converted to 0.25 acres of passive open space. Under the Preferred Alternative, Sunset Court Park would be relocated to the Sunset Terrace Subarea. Additionally, this park would be expanded from 0.5 acres to 2.6S acres and would have a vacation of Harrington Avenue NE similar to Alternative 3. This increases the acreage in neighborhood park land for this subarea and the Planned Action Study Area. Additionally, a library would be constructed in the subarea. Facility deficiencies in this subarea would also likely lead to spillover demand for active playfields for team sports in other parts of Renton as well as in surrounding communities. Planned Action Ordinance 44 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Cumulative Increased demands for park and Same as Planned Action Study recreation facilities and services Area generated by the forecast population growth under each of the alternatives would add to those created by general population growth throughout the Renton community. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Under studied alternatives for the Planned Action Study Area and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, there would be an increased demand for parks and recreation facilities. With the application of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Table 30. Parks and Recreation Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea During construction, impacts adjacent to or in With the prevalence of public facilities in the parks within the Planned Action Study Area, such Planned Action Study Area as a whole, and the as an increase in noise, dust, and access addition of a central park and a library in the limitations, shall be mitigated as per a Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment construction mitigation plan developed by Subarea, there is opportunity to manage the Planned Action applicants and approved by the current facilities in a manner that maximizes City. their beneficial parks and recreation uses for Planned Action Applicants shall pay a Parks and future population growth. The mitigation Recreation Impact fee as determined by the measures proposed for the Planned Action Study Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment, Area shall apply to the Potential Sunset Terrace payable to the City as specified by t he Renton Redevelopment Subarea. Municipal Code. The following four mitigation measures would help improve the availability or access to parks and recreation facilities in the Planned Action Study Area. The City is initiating a parks, recreation, open space and natural resources plan for completion in 2011. That plan could identify alternative LOS standards and parks and recreation opportunities inside or outside of the Planned Action Study Area that could serve the local population. The City is considering amendments to its development codes that would provide for payment of a fee -in -lieu for required common open space. As proposed, the fee -in -lieu option could be executed when development sites are located within 0.25 mile of a public park and when that lark can be safely - Planned Action ordinance 45 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea accessed by pedestrians. The City's package of amendments also includes park impact fees. 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. Nexus Renton Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan 16. Public Services Significant Impacts Table 31. Public Services Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Police The Renton Police Department Same as Planned Action Study could experience an increase in Area calls for service related to construction site theft, vandalism, or trespassing relating to Planned Action Ordinance 46 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Fire and Emergency Medical Services Education Health Care Social Services Solid Waste 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. The McKnight Middle School expansion would occur similar to other alternatives. In addition, changes would occur at the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center and the reconfigured Hillcrest Early Childhood Center would be part of a family village concept that would include recreation and housing. The expansion of McKnight Middle School is not expected to disrupt student attendance at the campus. 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. Construction at the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center as part of the family village redevelopment, would require relocation of the Friendly Kitchen weekly meal program that meets at that site. The Friendly Kitchen program would either be relocated permanently as a part of the redevelopment or may be accommodated as part of the range of social services provided at the family village. Planned Action Alternatives would result in construction - related waste generation. Same as Planned Action Study Area No impact Same as Planned Action Study Area 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. Same as Planned Action Study Area Planned Action Ordinance 47 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Library Operations Police Fire and Emergency Medical Services Education Planned Action Study Area When the library is relocated, library services may be temporarily unavailable in the study area, but services would be available at other branches. Applying the Renton Police Department staffing per population standard to the anticipated population increase would result in a need for an estimated 8.6 to 9.3 additional police officers to address increase in service calls related to growth. Applying the fire service's staffing ratio to growth in the study area would result in the need for an additional 1. 2 to 1.3 firefighter full- time equivalents (FTEs) compared to existing conditions to maintain the City's existing staffing ratio. Population growth would result in an increase in approximately 526 to 567 students in the Renton School District compared to existing conditions. The district's planned opening of Honey Dew Elementary, as well as construction of additions to McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School, would accommodate this increase in student population. New students within the study area would include a higher than average number of students speaking English as a second language, increasing demands on the district's English Language Learners Program. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Same as Planned Action Study Area Applying the Renton Police Department standard to the anticipated population increase would account for 1.0 to1.8 of the approximately 8.6 to 9.3 additional police officers to address population growth study area. Applying the fire service's staffing ratio to growth in the study area to the population growth of in this subarea would result in the need for less than 0.14 to 0.2 of the 1.2 to1.3 firefighter FTEs needed in the overall Planned Action Study Area to maintain the City's existing staffing ratio. Population growth would result in approximately 60 to 107 additional students compared to existing conditions. It is anticipated that this additional increment of students would be accommodated by the district's planned capital improvements, including opening Honey Dew Elementary, expansion of McKnight Middle School, and redeveloping the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center which would provide additional student capacity in addition to early education programs that currently exist on the site. Health Care Increase in study area population Based VMC's existing ratio of would increase the need for hospital beds to district hospital beds in the Valley population, the anticipated Medical Center (VMC) service population increase would result area by approximately 41 to 4.4 in a small increase of beds, based on the current ratio of approximately 0.5 to 0.8 hospital hospital beds to district service beds of the total assumed for the area population. Additional entire study area. population growth may also Planned Action Ordinance 48 Exhibit 6: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Social Services Solid Waste Library Services result in increased demand at VMC's nearby primary care and urgent care clinics. Planned Action Alternatives include major public investments, which could expand upon or enhance social services in the study area. Among the key components outside of Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea is development of a family village in the North Subarea. Solid waste generation is expected to increase by around 129,689 to 139,000 pounds per week compared to existing conditions. A portion of this waste stream would be diverted to recyclables. Anticipated growth would create a demand for an additional 1,940 to 2,079 square feet of library space compared to existing conditions. The subarea's new affordable housing development for seniors would include enriched senior services on site, including elder day -health for off-site patients in a 12,500 -square -foot space on the northeastern vacant RHA parcel. The increased population of affordable housing and, in particular, affordable senior housing would increase the demand for social services, including senior services accessible to the subarea. Additional community space at the family village, would be located outside but nearby the subarea. Solid waste generation from the subarea would increase by about 14,750 to 9,300 pounds per week compared to existing conditions. A percentage of this waste would be diverted to recycling. Anticipated growth in the subarea would account for approximately 221-397 square feet of library facilities to meet the growth in demand. Indirect and Cumulative All alternatives increase growth Same as Planned Action Study above existing conditions and Area would add to a citywide increase in demand for public services; however, the alternatives are accommodating an increment of growth already anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan at a citywide level, and planned growth to the year 2031 will be addressed in the City's 2014 Comprehensive Plan update.. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Demand for public services will continue to increase in conjunction with population growth. With advanced planning and implementation of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse Planned Action Ordinance 49 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document impacts related to police, fire/emergency medical, education, health care, social services, solid waste, or library services are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Table 32. Public Services Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Police Police During construction, security measures shall be implemented by developers to reduce potential criminal activity, including on-site security surveillance, lighting, and fencing to prevent public access. Such measures shall be detailed in a construction mitigation plan prepared by Planned Action Applicants and approved by the City. Planned Action applicants shall design street layouts, open space, and recreation areas to promote visibility for residents and police. Street and sidewalk lighting would discourage theft and vandalism, and enhance security. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Developers will construct all new buildings in compliance with the International Fire Code and Renton Development Regulations (RMC Title 4), including provision of emergency egress routes and installation of fire extinguishing and smoke detection systems. All new buildings will comply with accessibility standard for people with disabilities, per the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Planned Action applicants shall pay a Fire Impact Fee as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment, payable to the City as specified in the Renton Municipal Code. Education During renovation of the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center, the Renton School District shall provide temporary transportation or take other equivalent measures to ensure accessibility of the early education program to area children who attend the program. Since the school district typically plans for a shorter -term horizon than the 20 years envisioned for the Planned Action, the district will continue to monitor student generation rates into the future and adjust its facility planning accordingly. The district will continue to implement existing plans to expand permanent student capacity at area schools. In addition, the district may utilize portable classrooms or shift attendance boundaries to address student Mitigation measures described for the Planned Action Study Area also apply to this Subarea. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Mitigation measures described for the Planned Action Study Area also apply to this Subarea. Education No mitigation measures are necessary or proposed. Health Care No mitigation measures are necessary or proposed. Social Services RHA's provision of community space that could be used for social services or community meeting space for community organizations would serve as mitigation. See the discussion under the Planned Action Study Area. AHA should maintain a community meeting space within or near the subarea during construction phase of Sunset Terrace redevelopment that allows for on-site social service programs to continue to meet within the subarea. Solid Waste Mitigation measures described for the Planned Action Study Area also apply to this Subarea. Public Library The King County Library System should continue to monitor growth within its geographic clusters, and adjust plans for facility sizing and spacing according to shifting trends in population growth. Planned Actian Ordinance 50 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea capacity issues that arise on a shorter term basis. The district will also continue monitoring growth in the number of English Language Learner students in the district, and plan additional capacity in that program to meet growing demands for that service, particularly in schools with high percentages of English Language Learners, such as Highlands Elementary. The school district imposes a school impact fee for new residential construction. This funding source can be used to help provide expanded school facilities needed to serve the growth anticipated under all alternatives [RMC 4-1-160]. Health Care There are no mitigation measures needed or proposed for health care due to the negligible change in the number of beds. Social Services The City's planned improvements to the streetscape and transit facilities that make walking, bicycling, and taking transit more viable modes of transportation would improve accessibility of social services located outside the Planned Action Study Area to area residents. RHA, Renton School District, and the City should work together to relocate the Friendly Kitchen community feeding program when the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center campus, the current site of this program, is redeveloped as part of a family village. Relocation should occur at an accessible location nearby to maintain service to the existing community that relies upon the Friendly Kitchen services. If possible, Renton School District and RHA should incorporate space for the continuation of the Friendly Kitchen Program within the family village. RHA and the City should consider developing a community center facility as part of Sunset Terrace redevelopment or the family village development or at another location in the Planned Action Study Area. The center would provide an accessible on-site space for a comprehensive range of social services for residents in the Planned Action Study Area, focused on alleviating poverty, and addressing the needs of some of the more predominant demographic groups found within the Planned Action Study Area—seniors, individuals living with disabilities, those speaking English as a Second Language, and youth. Solid Waste The City shall require development applicants to consider recycling and reuse of building materials Planned Action Ordinance 51 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea when redeveloping sites, and as part of their application explain what measures are included. The City may condition Planned Action applications to incorporate feasible recycling and reuse measures. Public Library The King County Library System should continue to monitor growth within its geographic clusters, and adjust plans for facility sizing and spacing according to shifting trends in population growth. Nexus Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC Title IV Chapter 1 Administration and Enforcement RMC Title IV Chapter 5 Building and Fire Prevention Standards 17. Utilities Significant Impacts Table 33. Utilities Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Where new construction occurs, Same as Planned Action Study it is anticipated that existing Area telecommunication lines would be removed, replaced, or abandoned in place. Redevelopment would require coordination with service providers regarding the location of proposed structures, utilities, and site grading. To accommodate the required demand and capacity for water and sewer services for new development and redevelopment in the study area, existing water and sanitary sewer lines would be abandoned in place or removed and replaced with new and larger lines. New and larger water and sewer mains would be installed in existing and/or future dedicated public rights-of-way or within dedicated utility easements to the City, and would connect with the existinE Planned Action Ordinance 52 Exhibit 6: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Operations Telecommunications distribution network. Existing utility lines would continue to service the site during construction, or temporary bypass service would be implemented until the distribution or collection system is complete and operational. Increased capacity requirements with increased levels of population and commercial activity in each of the alternatives could require new fiber within the Planned Action Study Area and coordination with telecommunication providers as development occurs should be performed so that appropriate facilities can be planned. Water The increase in the average daily demand (ADD) is projected to be 0.56 to 0.59 million gallons per day within the Planned Action Study Area. The growth projected would increase the storage requirements for the Highlands 435 and 565 pressure zones and further increase the existing storage deficit in the Highlands 435 pressure zone. In addition, the development that is projected for the Planned Action Study Area would increase the fire -flow requirements with more multifamily development and commercial development. The capacity of the existing water distribution system to meet these higher fire flows is inadequate if system improvements are not constructed. Same as Planned Action Study Area The increase in ADD for this subarea is 0.05 to 0.09 million gallons per day. The increase in the peak daily demand (PDD) for this subarea is 0.09 to 0.16 million gallons per day. The primary significant impact of subarea development on the water distribution system would be related increased fire -flow requirements. These increased fire flow requirements are substantial and cannot be met by the existing distribution system serving the subarea. Water system pressure provided by the 435 pressure zone within the subarea is not adequate for multistory development and/or for development with fire sprinkler systems. New water mains extended from the higher - pressure S65 pressure zone system to service the subarea would need to be phased to accommodate growth. Planned Action ordinance 53 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Wastewater Indirect and Cumulative The increase in wastewater load for the Planned Action Study Area is 0.59 to 0.63 million gallons per day. This increase in wastewater load is not expected to affect the wastewater interceptors that provide conveyance of wastewater from the Planned Action Study Area but it could increase surcharging that is currently experienced and observed within the Planned Action Study Area. Demands on utilities would increase as a result of cumulative development. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated as long as the replacement of water and sewer infrastructure is properly planned, designed, and constructed, and funding strategies are identified and approved by City Council. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The increase in wastewater flow in this subarea is 0.05 to 0.10 million gallons per day. Similar to the Planned Action Study Area, no impacts on the interceptors that provide conveyance from the subarea are expected, but the increased sewer load could impact local sewers within the subarea. Same as Planned Action Study Area All studied alternatives are anticipated to increase demand for water, wastewater, and telecommunication services. Increased growth in the Planned Action Study Area has the potential to exacerbate existing water and wastewater system deficiencies. However, with application of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Table 34. Utilities Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Water To mitigate the current and projected water storage deficit in the pressure zones that serve the study area, the City completed the construction of the 4.2 -million -gallon Hazen Reservoir in the Highlands 565 pressure zone in March 2009. The City also completed a water distribution storage feasibility study to develop conceptual options and planning level cost estimates for expanding the storage capacity at two existing City -owned sites: the Highlands Reservoirs site and the Mt. Olivet Tank site Water The mitigation measures that are required in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are similar to those noted for the Planned Action Study Area. The water storage deficit would be met with an increase in storage at the existing Highlands Reservoirs site, and fire -flow requirements would require the new 12 -inch -diameter pipe loop throughout this subarea and realignment of the Highlands 435 and Highlands 56S pressure zones. As noted previously, the City has recently installed a new 12 -inch -diameter main for development Planned Action Ordinance 54 Exhibit 8: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area (HDR, Inc. 2009). Financial strategies for the planning, design, and construction of the storage -capacity expansion have not been determined at this time. To mitigate the fire -Flow requirements for the proposed level of development and redevelopment within the Planned Action Study Area, larger diameter (12 -inch) piping is required throughout the Planned Action Study Area to convey the higher fire -flow requirements. The new water mains will be looped for reliability and redundancy of service, as required by City policies and water design standards. The larger mains will be installed within the dedicated right-of-way in a north -to - south and east -to -west grid -style water system. Additional mains within the development sites will also be required to provide water to hydrants and water meters, and should be looped within the development site around buildings. To provide the water pressure requirements for multistory buildings and to support the pressure requirements for fire sprinkler systems, the new water mains will be connected to the higher -pressure Highlands 565 pressure zone. The options to address fire flow within the Planned Action Study Area are further described below. The Highlands 565 pressure zone typically has enough pressure to meet the pressure needs for fire -flaw requirements for the proposed development and redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area, but is limited in providing the fire -flow rate due to the size of the existing water mains that are generally smaller than 12 inches in diameter. The Highlands 435 pressure zone operates at lower pressures and has smaller -diameter pipes in this area of the pressure zone and, therefore, cannot meet both the pressure requirements and the fire -Flow capacity (flow) requirements. The options developed to remedy fire -flow and pressure inadequacies are shown in Draft EIS Section 4.17, Figure 4.17-1 and summarized below. A 12 -inch -diameter pipeline loop shown in Draft EIS Section 4.17, Figure 4.17-1 was developed to extend the Highlands 565 pressure zone into the existing Highlands 435 pressure zone. This 12 -inch -diameter loop was also extended north of NE 12th Street in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea adjacent to this subarea, and as development occurs in the subarea, the pipe network would need to be extended to serve the development. A more detailed discussion of needed system improvements is provided in Attachment 2.Wastewater Collection The sewers within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are also identified for replacement based on age and condition in the City's Long Range Wastewater Management Plan. Based on the increased wastewater load within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, the local sewers may need to be replaced with upsized pipe to manage the increased wastewater load from the subarea. A more detailed discussion of needed sewer system improvements is provided Attachment 2. existing Highlands 565 pressure zone to improve the conveyance capacity throughout Planned Action Ordinance 55 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea the Planned Action Study Area. This 12 -inch - diameter loop improvement builds on the City's recent extension of the Highlands 565 pressure zone into the Highlands 435 pressure zone to support fire -flow requirements for the Harrington Square Development. In addition to the 12 -inch -diameter pipe loop shown in Draft EIS Section 4.17, Figure 4.17-1, additional piping improvements for each development served from the 12 -inch -diameter loop are expected to be required to provide sufficient Fire flow and pressure throughout each development. The sizing and layout of this additional piping will depend on the development layout, but will require that the development piping be looped around buildings and be sufficient in size to maintain the fire - flow requirements of the development. Wastewater Collection The local wastewater collection system n the Planned Action Study Area is scheduled for replacement based on age and condition as noted in the City of Renton Long Range Wastewater Management Plan (City of Renton 2009b). The local sewers have reached the end of their useful life and have been identified as high priority replacements due to leaks and current surcharging. However, the increased wastewater load with the development in the Planned Action Study Area could require that the local sewers be replaced with larger diameter pipe to provide sufficient capacity to the wastewater interceptors that serve the Planned Action Study Area. The locations where lines would be improved are identified in Draft EIS Section 4.17. Nexus Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC Title IV Chapter 1 Administration and Enforcement RMC Title IV Chapter 6 Street and Utility Standards Advisory Notes The EIS identified potentially applicable federal, state, and local laws and rules that apply to Planned Actions and that can serve to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. It is assumed that all applicable federal, state, and local regulations would be applied. The primary set of applicable local Planned Action Ordinance 56 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document regulations is the Renton Municipal Code. A list of specific requirements included in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS. Planned Action Ordinance 57 Exhibit B: Mitigation document Attachment 1: Draft EIS, Cultural Resources Appendix J, Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery of Human Skeletal Remains or Cultural Resources during Redevelopment of the Edmonds - Glenwood Lot, Harrington Lot, and Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex in Renton, Washington Any human skeletal remains that are discovered during this project will be treated with dignity and respect. A. If any City of Renton employee or any of the contractors or subcontractors believes that he or she has made an unanticipated discovery of human skeletal remains or cultural resources, all work adjacent to the discovery shall cease. The area of work stoppage will be adequate to provide for the security, protection, and integrity of the human skeletal remains, in accordance with Washington State Law. The City of Renton project manager will be contacted. B. The City of Renton project manager or the City of Renton representative will be responsible for taking appropriate steps to protect the discovery. At a minimum, the immediate area will be secured to a distance of thirty (30) feet from the discovery. Vehicles, equipment, and unauthorized personnel will not be permitted to traverse the discovery site. C. If skeletal remains are discovered, the City of Renton will immediately call the King County Sheriffs office, the King County Coroner, and a cultural resource specialist or consultant qualified to identify human skeletal remains. The county coroner will determine if the remains are forensic or non -forensic (whether related to a criminal investigation). The remains should be protected in place until this has been determined. D. If the human skeletal remains are determined to be non -forensic, the King County Coroner will notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. DAHP will take jurisdiction over the remains. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Native American or Non -Native American. DAHP will handle all consultation with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe as to the treatment of the remains. E. If cultural resources are uncovered, such as stone tools or flakes, fire -cracked rocks from a hearth feature, butchered animal bones, or historic -era objects (e.g., patent medicine bottles, milk tins, clay pipes, building foundations), the City of Renton will arrange for a qualified professional archaeologist to evaluate the find. Again, the cultural resources will be protected in place until the archaeologist has examined the find. F. If the cultural resources find is determined to be significant, the City of Renton cultural resource specialist/archaeologist or consulting archaeologist will immediately contact the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribes Planned Action ordinance 58 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document to seek consultation regarding the eligibility of any further discovery for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. CONTACT INFORMATION Erika Conkling, AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Phone: (425) 430-6578 Stephanie Kramer Assistant State Archaeologist Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 1063 Capitol Way South Olympia, VITA 98504-8343 Phone: (360) 586-3083 King County Sheriffs Office Headquarters 516 Third Avenue, Room W-150 Seattle, WA 98104-2312 Phone: [206) 296-4155 [non -emergency) Laura Murphy Muckleshoot Tribe Cultural Resources 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Phone: (253) 876-3272 Planned Action ordinance 59 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Attachment 2: Figure 3.17-1 Potential Subarea Utility Improvements and Phasing Planned Action Ordinance 60 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Water The mitigation measures that are required in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are similar to those noted for the Planned Action Study Area. The water storage deficit would be met with an increase in storage at the existing Highlands Reservoirs site, and fire -flow requirements would require the new 12 -inch -diameter pipe loop throughout this subarea and realignment of the Highlands 435 and Highlands 565 pressure zones. As noted previously, the City has recently installed a new 12 -inch -diameter main for development adjacent to this subarea, and as development occurs in the subarea, the pipe network would need to be extended to serve the development. A more detailed discussion of needed system improvements is provided below. Overview Renton fire and building codes mandate minimum fire flows, durations, and pressure prior to occupancy of new structures. In the case of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea these mandated flows dictate substantial upgrades to the water distribution system. When the fire flow required for a new development exceeds 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm), the City also requires that the mains providing that fire flow be looped. Looped water mains provide more reliability and higher pressures under fire -flow conditions. City regulations also require installation of fire hydrants along all arterials such as NE Sunset Boulevard. Taken together these code requirements would lead to a series of new water mains connected to the 565 pressure zone and extended to the various redevelopment projects within the subarea. It is not possible to predict the precise timing and sequencing of these redevelopment projects. The following paragraphs illustrate one scenario of water main sequencing that could meet fire -flow requirements. Edmonds -Glenwood Phase 1 Phase 1 of the Edmonds -Glenwood redevelopment project consists of townhomes along Glenwood Avenue NE. Fire -flow requirements for this project are expected to be in the range of 2,500 gpm. The existing water system in Glenwood Avenue NE cannot provide that amount of fire flow. A new 12 -inch -diameter water main would be required to be extended from Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street in the 565 pressure zone, south along Harrington Avenue NE, and continuing along Glenwood Avenue NE past and through the project site, about $00 feet of new pipe (Segment A on Figure 3.17-1). New Library A new library is proposed in the northeast quadrant of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE. If the fire -flow requirements for the new library are about 2,500 gpm or less, then the existing 12 -inch -diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard could meet that requirement. Planned Action Ordinance 61 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document New Mixed -Use Building Adjacent to New Library A new mixed-use community service/retail/residential structure is proposed adjacent to the new library between NE Sunset Boulevard, NE 10th Street, and Sunset Lane NE. It is reasonable to expect that the combination of additional structure size and exposure (to the library) would mandate fire flows for this building in excess of 2,500 gpm. In that case, a looped system of mains from the 565 pressure zone would be required. This could be achieved by extending new mains from the existing 12 -inch -diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard northwesterly on both Harrington Avenue NE and NE 10th Street to Sunset Lane NE. The loop could then be connected by installing a new 12 -inch - diameter main in Sunset Lane NE from Harrington Avenue NE to NE 10th Street. The existing water main in Sunset Lane NE could then be abandoned in place. This new loop would be about 700 feet in total length (Segment B on Figure 3.17-1). RHA's Piha Site Fire flows required for the PIHA site development have not been established. If the flow requirement is 2,500 gpm or less, then it could be met by extending a new 12 inch main in NE 10th Street past the site to Harrington Avenue NE. The extension could either be from NE Sunset Boulevard (if the project precedes the mixed use development adjacent to the library). Or it could be from Sunset Lane NE, if the project occurs after the mixed use development adjacent to the library. The length of pipe required from Sunset Boulevard would be about 500 feet; from Sunset Lane NE it would be about 350 feet. (Segment C on Figure 3.17-1) It is possible that required fire flows for the PIRA site would exceed 2,500 gpm. In that situation a looped main system would be necessary. There are multiple scenarios to meet the Iooping requirements. Those fire flow looping scenarios depend largely on the timing and sequencing of the PISA site project; i.e. does it precede or follow other redevelopment projects contemplated for the project area. Under one scenario, if the PIHA site development precedes construction of Phase II and III of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment looping could be achieved by extending another main (in addition to Segment C, discussed above) north on Harrington Avenue NE to Glenwood Avenue NE (Segment H on Figure 3.17-1). If PIHA site development follows Phases II and III of Sunset Terrace, looping could be achieved by simply connecting the PIRA main extension in NE 10th Street (Segment C) with Segment E at the intersection of Harrington Avenue NE and NE 101h Street. Under another scenario, the PIHA site development could proceed before all other projects. In that case the cost of looping would not be shared with other projects as described in the preceding paragraphs and the PIHA site project would need to install either a "long-term" or a "temporary" 12 inch diameter "stand alone" water main loop. The "long-term" alignment would be to extend a 12 -inch main in Harrington Avenue NE connecting to the existing high-pressure water line in NE Sunset Blvd. This option would result in the installation of a new water main in the section of Harrington Avenue NE that is proposed to be vacated to help create the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Neighborhood Park. The new 12 -inch water main would be looped around the west and north side of the new PIHA site building and extended southerly in Sunset Lane NE to NE 10th Street, then southeasterly in NE 10th Street to connect back to the existing 12 -inch line in Sunset Boulevard NE. (Segment P1 on Figure 3.17-1) This new looped water main would be able to deliver about 5,000 gpm. Planned Action Ordinance 62 Exhibit a: Mitigation Document A temporary route (which is not the preferred option) to provide 5,000 gpm to the same site would be to extend two parallel 12 -inch water lines in NE 10th Street from the existing 12 -inch line in Sunset Boulevard NE, along with a looped water main around the west and north side of the building, and a 12 -inch line in Sunset Lane NE connecting back to the second new 12 -inch main in NE 10th Street. (Segment PZ on Figure 3.17-1) Sunset Terrace Redevelopment It is reasonable to assume that the fire Flows required for the Sunset Terrace redevelopment would exceed 2,500 gpm, mandating installation of a looped system. In addition, Sunset Terrace abuts NE Sunset Boulevard, triggering the requirement to install hydrants every 400 feet along that arterial. It may be possible to phase the Sunset Terrace redevelopment in a manner that would allow early elements of the redevelopment to be constructed without looping the water mains (see Edmonds - Glenwood Phase 1, above). In any case, all mains serving the redevelopment would be extended from the 565 pressure zone. Initially, a new water main would be installed in Sunset Lane NE from Harrington Avenue NE to Glenwood Avenue NE (about 750 feet). This presumes that the new main in Harrington Avenue NE discussed in the Mixed -Use Building section, above, has been installed. The existing water main in Sunset Lane NE could be abandoned in place (Segment D on Figure 3.17-1). Looping the system could be achieved by extending the main from the intersection of Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE along the newly aligned NE 10th Street to Harrington Avenue NE (about 250 feet) (Segment E on Figure 3.17-1). This presumes that the water main extension in NE 10th Street to serve RNA's Piha site has already be installed. There are two ways to install the required fire hydrants along NE Sunset Boulevard. One option would be to extend the 12 -inch -diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard from Harrington Avenue NE along the Sunset Terrace frontage (about 800 feet). This would be the most expensive option. Another option would be to extend fire hydrant leads southwesterly through the Sunset Terrace project from Sunset Lane NE to NE Sunset Boulevard at the appropriate intervals (Segments F on Figure 3.17-1). This would be the least expensive option for two reasons. First, the pipes would not be installed in a street avoiding significant restoration costs. Second, the pipes could be smaller because they would be single purpose and not part of the City's transmission/distribution system. Edmonds -Glenwood Phase 2 Fire -flow requirements for the Edmonds -Glenwood Phase 2 project are expected to be about 4,000 gpm, triggering the requirement to loop the water system. There are two options to meet this looping requirement: north or south. The north option would involve extending the 12 -inch -diameter main from Phase 1 westerly through the site to Edmonds Avenue NE. From there, the main would be extended north in Edmonds Avenue NE to NE 12th Street, then east in NE 12th Street to Harrington Avenue NE, a distance of more than 1,500 feet (Segment G on Figure 3.17-1). The south option would begin in the same manner by extending the Phase 1 main through the project site. Looping would be achieved by installing two new mains. One would extend from Sunset Lane NE north in Glenwood Avenue NE to the Phase 1 pipe. The other would extend Planned Action ordinance 63 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document northwesterly in easements adjacent to NE Sunset Boulevard and Edmonds Avenue NE from the northern -most fire hydrant lead installed for the Sunset Terrace project through the Phase 2 site. (A more expensive option would be to install this same section of pipe in the rights-of-way of NE Sunset Boulevard and Edmonds Avenue NE.) These loops would also comprise more than 1,500 feet of new pipe (Segment H on Figure 3.17-1). Water Main Costs The cost of installation for new water mains is driven by a number of factors. Water mains installed in roads are more expensive than water mains installed within project or open space areas, because of the cost savings of avoiding conflicting utilities and restoring the road surface. New water main costs are also affected by whether they are stand-alone or part of a suite of infrastructure improvements. If the project is only installing a new water main, then all of the excavation, bedding, installation, and other costs are borne by that project. If the project involves installation of the other underground utilities such as sewers or storm sewers, the costs common to the project can be spread across each utility facility being installed. The cost of water mains is also affected by the project sponsor. If the project is being constructed by a private developer, new water mains are less expensive. If the project is sponsored by a government agency, numerous statutes make new water main projects more expensive. The City's recent experience with stand-alone water main projects in a major arterial indicate costs per foot of about $200 to $250. Applying these costs to the water main improvement described above would indicate costs in the range of $1 to 1.2 million. The improvements would be implemented with City and developer funding. Wastewater Collection Overview The sewers within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are also identified for replacement based on age and condition in the City's Long Range Wastewater Management Plan. Based on the increased wastewater load within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, the local sewers may need to be replaced with upsized pipe to manage the increased wastewater load from the subarea. A more detailed discussion of needed sewer system improvements is provided below. Detailed Discussion Mitigation issues related to wastewater fall into three broad categories: upsizing, rehabilitation, and relocation. Wastewater flows (forecast for the Planned Action Study Area, including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) indicate that some existing sewer pipes must be replaced with larger pipes. One of those pipes is in Harrington Avenue NE. This sewer pipe would be replaced by the City as part of the overall Sunset Terrace redevelopment to accommodate forecast flows. Planned Action Ordinance 64 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Manholes along the Harrington alignment would be carefully designed and located to avoid interference with the planned park. The collection sewers in Sunset Lane NE are at or near the end of their design life. The condition of these sewers would be assessed to determine if they can be rehabilitated in place or if new pipes would need to be installed. The redevelopment concept proposes narrowing and shifting the alignment of Sunset Lane NE. If this action leaves the existing sewers too close to new structures, then the City would require that a new sewer main be installed within the new right-of-way of Sunset Lane NE. Planned Action ordinance 65 Exhibit B: Mitigation Oacument Figure 3.17-1 Fireflow Phasing—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SiEPA EIS Planned Action Ordinance 66 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Private Rd ii rr NE 10h P1 NE 10th 81 NF ft NE 91h pj "'N k, pi Aly MA..Huse IxMrg - Pi r.r B F ft~Lp'-h � P2 0 100 200 300 400 �c 4amm G hm, 010110:::::MMMMEZ= Feet Figure 3.17-1 Fireflow Phasing—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SiEPA EIS Planned Action Ordinance 66 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Appendix F Noise Analysis and Criteria—Preferred Alternative 1CF INTERNATIONAL Memorandum Date: February 23, 2011 To: Erika Conkling, Senior Planner, City of Renton Cc: Jim Wilder, PE, ICF Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner, ICF From: Kai -Ling Kuo, PE, ICF Subject. Documentation of Meeting HUD Noise Criteria Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea This memorandum documents and demonstrates that the proposed housing developments in Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea meet the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) noise criteria as outlined under 24 CFR 51, Subpart B - Noise Abatement and Control. In summary, the project meets the exterior noise standards in Section 51.103, by satisfying special circumstances under Section 51.105(a), which shift the acceptable threshold from 65 dBA Ldn to 70 dBA Ldn. The project will employ additional attenuation measures, where feasible, to satisfy Section 51.104(a) and meet HUD's interior noise goals in Section 51.101(9). Section 51.103 - Criteria and Standards, Cc) Exterior standards. (2) The noise environment inside a building is considered acceptable if: (i) The noise environment external to the building complies with these standards, and (ii) the building is constructed in a manner common to the area or, if of uncommon construction, has at least the equivalent noise attenuation characteristics. According to Section 51.103(c), the Site Acceptability Standard of 6S dBA Ldn may be shifted to 70 dB in special circumstances pursuant to Section 51.105(a). The Preferred Alternative would result in exterior noise levels of 68-69 dBA Ldn. The Preferred Alternative satisfies special circumstances pursuant to Section 51.105(a); therefore the noise environment external to the proposed buildings comply complies with the Site Acceptability Standard of 70 dBA Ldn. The building is constructed in a manner common to the Pacific Northwest area, which compiles with Section 51.103(c)(ii). (See further discussion below.) Section 51.104 - Special Requirements. (a)(1) Noise attenuation. Noise attenuation measures are those required in addition to attenuation provided by buildings as commonly constructed in the area, and requiring open windows for ventilation. Measures that reduce external noise at a site shall be used wherever practicable in preference to the incorporation of additional noise attenuation in buildings. Building designs and construction techniques that provide more noise attenuation than typical construction may be employed also to meet the noise attenuation requirements. (2) Normally unacceptable noise zones 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550 - Seattle, WA 98104 . 206.801.2800 � 206.801.2899 fax � idi.com Documentation of Meeting HUD Noise Criteria February 23, 2011 Page 2 of 4 and unacceptable noise zones. Approvals in Normally Unacceptable Noise Zones require a minimum of 5 decibels additional sound attenuation for buildings having noise -sensitive uses if the day -night average sound level is greater than 65 decibels but does not exceed 70 decibels, or a minimum of 10 decibels of additional sound attenuation if the day -night average sound level is greater than 70 decibels but does not exceed 75 decibels. Noise attenuation measures in Unacceptable Noise Zones require the approval of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and development, or the Certifying Officer for activities subject to 24 CFR part 58. (See Section 51.104(b)(2).) The Preferred Alternative would result in exterior noise levels of 68-69 dBA Ldn. According to Section 51.104(a), 5 dB additional sound attenuation is required for buildings having noise -sensitive uses if the day -night average sound level is greater than 65 decibels but does not exceed 70 decibels. According to the HUD Noise Guidebook, the standard construction approaches with closed windows can normally achieve the sound attenuation of more than 24 dBA to meet the interior noise standard of 45 dBA Ldn. To comply with Section 51.104(x), the project mitigation is to provide minimum attenuation of30 dBA. (See attachment for assumptions) Section 51.101- General Policy. (9) Interior noise goals. It is a HUD goal that the interior auditory environment shall not exceed a day -night average sound level of 45 decibels. Attenuation measures to meet these interior goals shall be employed where feasible. Emphasis shall be given to noise sensitive interior spaces such as bedrooms. Minimum attenuation requirements are prescribed in Section 51.104(a). The proposed buildings comply with Section 51.101(9), because according to the HUD noise guidebook, the standard construction approaches with closed windows can normally achieve the sound attenuation of more than 24 dBA to meet the interior noise standard of 45 dBA Ldn. Although opening of windows will expose the units adjacent to Sunset Boulevard to levels above the HUD interior noise standard of 45 dBA Ldn, on an average day, the projectmeets the HUD interior noisegoals with following reasons. • The noise environment external to the building complies with the Site Acceptability Standards of Section 51.103(c). • The building will be constructed in a manner common to the area, Section 51.103(c)(ii). Therefore, there is no mechanical ventilation or air conditioning present in the rest of the building. • When windows are closed, the building will employ additional attenuation measures to satisfy Section 51.104(a) and meet the HUD's Interior noise goals in Section 51.101(9). • Occasionally, under excessive temperatures, the residents may choose to open windows; however, the average interior nose levels will still meet interior noise standard of 45 dBA Ldn. • The City proposes to include in mitigation measure a conservative performance standard - STC rating of 30 dBA - to ensure reasonable attempts will be made to meet the HUD Interior Noise Goals when windows are unopened with §51.101(9), which state that "It is a HUD goal that the interior auditory environment shall not exceed a day -night average sound level of 45 decibels. Section 51.105 -Exceptions. (a) Flexibility for non -acoustic benefits. Where it is determined that program objectives cannot be achieved on sites meeting the acceptability standard of 65 decibels, the Acceptable Zone may be shifted to Ldn 70 on a case-by-case basis if all the following conditions are satisfied: Documentation of Meeting HUD Noise Criteria February 23, 2011 Page 3 of 4 (1) The project does not require an Environmental Impact Statement under provisions of Section 51.104(b)(1) and noise is the only environmental issue. (2) The project has received a Special Environmental Clearance and has received the concurrence of the Environmental Clearance Officer. (3) The project meets other program goals to provide housing in proximity to employment, public facilities and transportation. (4) The project is in conformance with local goals and maintains the character of the neighborhood. (5) The project sponsor has set forth reasons, acceptable to HUD, as to why the noise attenuation measures that would normally be required for new construction in the Ldn 6S to Ldn 70 zone cannot be met. (6) Other sites which are not exposed to noise above Ldn 65 and which meet program objectives are generally not available. Response: • The Sunset Terrace redevelopment did not require an EIS. Section 51.104(b)(1) refers to greenfield redevelopment rather than redevelopment within an urban context Also, according to thresholds in 24 CFR Part 58 Section 58.37, the size of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment (maximum dwellings in the most intensive concept included 589 dwellings) does not exceed the thresholds for an EIS under NEPA. The City and RNA elected to prepare an EIS as they were seeking to use a tool allowed under Washington State Environmental Policy Act - a planned action - which facilitates future development r The City is the responsible entity and isgranting the Special Environmental Clearance on the basis of the EIS noise analysis and the characteristics of the proposals. The project is a mixed use development with residential, commercial, and civic uses along a major transportation and transit route (SR 900). The project includes improvements to the civic and transportation facilities (e.g. library, green stormwater infrastructure, new water/sewer lines, streetscape and pedestrian improvements) to facilitate employment and housing investment in the neighborhood and to reinforce transit services. The project is in conformance with City plans (see Draft EIS Section 3.8/4.8 and Final EIS Section 3.8) and matches the character of the neighborhood (see Draft EIS Section 3.12/4.12 and Final EIS Section 3.12). • The noise analysis in Draft EIS Section 3.6/4.6 and Final EISSection 3.6 shows thatsound wails 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 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 building setbacks from NE Sunset Boulevard are the most that can be achieved and are greater than the current development Other sites meeting program objectives are not available. The objectives are to transform and integrate Sunset Terrace into a new mixed use, mixed income development with public amenities serving the broader community and serving as a catalystfor positive private investment in the community. The present site is the most appropriate. Documentation of Meeting HUD Noise Criteria February 23, 2011 Page 4 of 4 Attachment: HUD STC Ratings and Noise Levels The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published The Noise Guidebook, which includes Sound Transmission Class (STC} Guidance for different construction types (Chapter 4 Supplement). This attachment presents calculations using HUD's STC method to determine whether standard construction can achieve sound reduction sufficient to achieve HUDs interior noise standard of 4S dBA. Assumptions The STC for a standard exterior wall - 39 db (Table 3 on page 38 of Chapter 4 - 5/8" plywood siding, fiberglass insulation, 2x4 studs 16" o.c.,'h" insulation board sheathing, 1h" Gypsum board) The STC for an aluminum single hung window, closed, glazed with 7/16" insulating glass - 25 dB (Table 3 on page 38 of Chapter 4) Percentage of wall occupied by window - 30% Results With an exterior noise level over 68 dBA under all the action and no action alternatives, the proposed buildings would be required to achieve a minimum 24 dBA reduction to meet the interior standard of 45 dBA. Based on the assumptions above the resulting STC from the building equals 32 dB (Figure 17 on page 25 of Chapter 4). Thus, the building structure itself with closed windows can provide enough STC rating to meet the interior standard of 45 dBA. However, an STC rating of 30 dBA is recommended for first -row residential dwellings because the HUD Noise Guidebook shows that the sound reduction achieved by different techniques may be a little optimistic.2 1 1985. The Noise Guidebook. A Reference Document for Implementing the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Noise Policy. Environmental Planning Division, Office of Environment and Energy. Available: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cam/environmeiit/training/guidebooks/noise/. Accessed. January 11, 2011. z 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." Appendix G Cultural Resources—Three Sites Study STA7'r, p.A y �d 4 6.11 IF -A r 41•I&M_F9:II►10 to]z DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 • Olympia, Washington 88501 Mailing address: PO Box 48343 - Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360) 566-3065 • Fax Number (360) 586-3067 • Website: www.dahp.wa.gov February 24, 2011 Mr. Gregg Zimmerman Community & Economic Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Re: Multifamily/ Institutional Bldgs. Project Log No.: 022411 -06 -HUD Dear Mr. Zimmerman: Thank you for contacting our department. We have reviewed the professional archaeological survey report for the proposed Multifamily/ Institutional Buildings Project at 2902 NE 12th Street, 1150 Harrington Ave. NE, and Kirkland Ave NE —NE 15th and NE 16th Streets, Renton, King County, Washington. We concur with the determination of No Historic Properties Affected. We would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribe's cultural committee or other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800.4(a)(4). In the event that archaeological or historic materials are discovered during project activities, work in the immediate vicinity must stop, the area secured, and this department and the tribe's cultural committee notified. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer in compliance with the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and its implementing regulations 36CFR800.4. Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised, including information regarding historic properties that have not yet been identified. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and a copy of these comments should be included in subsequent environmental documents, Sincerely, Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D. State Archaeologist (360)586-3080 email: rob.whitlam@dahj2.wa.gov OF ARCHAEOLOGY 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protect the PosI, Shape the Future 0 Denis Law Mayor February 18, 2011 Ms. Allyson Brooks, PhD State Historic Preservation Officer ATFN: Mr. Russell Holter City 0 tiny o f i r� r- ✓� U8� + ; Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 Olympia, WA 95501 Subject: Section 106 Review—Renton Housing Authority Development Projects at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, 1150 Harrington Avenue NE, and Kirkland Ave NE between NE 15th and NE 16u' streets Dear Ms. Brooks and Mr. Holter: The City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority are proposing to use federal funds to construct multifamily dwellings and/or institutional buildings (e.g., government offices) at three locations In the city of Renton. These locations include the Renton Highlands Library property at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, Sunset Court Park at 1104 Harrington Avenue NE, and three vacant lots located along Kirkland Ave NE between NE 15th and NE 16th streets. The new buildings will be funded by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) capital funds per Section 26 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (U.S. Government Code (USC), Title 42, Section 1437x) in connection with projects assisted under Section 9. HUD is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In accordance with specific statutory authority and HUD's regulations at Section 24 Part 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the City of Renton Is completing the necessary environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the NHPA. ICF International is assisting the City in meeting these requirements, and has conducted a cultural resources survey for the undertaking. The study is comprised of archaeological investigations and a historic resources survey at each of the three project locations. A copy of the resulting survey report summarizing the findings is attached. The investigations identified no historic properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places located in the established Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the undertaking. Based on these findings, we have concluded that the proposed undertaking would have "no effect" on historic properties in the APE. With this letter, we would like to initiate formal consultation with you under Section 106 of the NHPA and hereby request your concurrence on the project APE and our finding that the proposed project will have no effect on historic properties. Notice of the undertaking and copies of this documentation have also been provided to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Renton City Hail 0 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Thank you for your assistance with this review. Please feel free to contact the at (425) 430-5578 should you have any questions. Sincerely, City of Renton Environmental Re(Qew Committee f Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Public Works Depart t Mark Peterson, Administrator Fire & Emergency Service Department �:� V"L�� Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department Alex Pietsch, Administrator Community and Economic Development Department Enclosure: Cultural Resources Survey Report 11 Denis Law C1ty O Mayor _ / Al Department of Community and Economic Development February 18, 2011 Alex Pietsch, Ad min istrator Ms. Virginia Cross Chairperson of the Muckleshoot Tribal Council Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Subject: Section 106 Review—Renton Housing Authority Development Projects at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, 1150 Harrington Avenue NE, and Kirkland Ave N6 between NE 15th and Nb 16th streets Dear Ms. Cross: The City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority are proposing to use federal funds to construct multifamily dwellings and/or institutional buildings (e.g., government offices) at three locations in the city of Renton. These locations include the Renton Highlands Library property at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, Sunset Court Park at 1104 Harrington Avenue NE, and three vacant lots located along Kirkland Ave NE between NE 15th and NE 16th streets. The new buildings will be funded by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) capital funds per Section 26 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (U.S. Government Code (USC), Title 42, Section 1437x) in connection with projects assisted under Section 9. HUD is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In accordance with specific statutory authority and HUD's regulations at Section 24 Part 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the City of Renton is completing the necessary environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the NHPA. ICF International is assisting the City in meeting these requirements, and has conducted a cultural resources survey for the undertaking. The study Is comprised of archaeological investigations and historic resources survey at each of the three project locations. A copy of the resulting survey report summarizing the findings is attached. The investigations identified no historic properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places located in the established Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the undertaking. Based on these findings, we have concluded that the proposed undertaking would have "no effect" on historic properties in the APE. With this letter, we would like to initiate formal consultation with you under Section 106 of the NHPA, and invite you to comment on our determination of the undertaking's proposed APE and our finding that the undertaking would have no effect on historic properties. We understand and respect the sensitive nature of cultural resources and traditional cultural properties and will not disseminate any specific site or area location information to the general public. Such Information will be withheld from any public documentation prepared for the undertaking. Thank you for your assistance with this review. Please feel free to contact meat (425) 430-6578 should you have any questions. Renton City Hall a 1055 South Grady Way a Renton, Washington 98057 9 rentonwa.gov Sincerely, City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Gregg Zimmerman, Ad istrator Public Works Depart t /0 Mark Peterson, Administrator Fire & Emergency Service Department Iil _r '�- Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department kV l vV-� Alex Pietsch, Administrator Community and Economic Development Department Enclosure: Cultural Resources Survey Report cc: - r Denis niMayDraw City D1 ;. rx February 18, 2011 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Cultural Resources Program Attn: Laura Murphy, Archaeologist 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Subject: Section 106 Review—Renton Housing Authority Development Projects at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, 1150 Harrington Avenue NE, and Kirkland Ave NE between NE 15th and NE 16th streets Dear Ms. Murphy: The City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority are proposing to use federal funds to construct multifamily dwellings and/or institutional buildings (e.g., government offices) at three locations in the city of Renton. These locations include The Renton Highlands Library property at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, Sunset Court Park at 1104 Harrington Avenue NE, and three vacant lots located along Kirkland Ave NE between NE 15th and NE 16t" streets. The new buildings will be funded by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) capital funds per Section 26 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (U.S. Government Code (USC), Title 42, Section 1437x) in connection with projects assisted under Section 9. HUD is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In accordance with specific statutory authority and HUD's regulations at Section 24 Part 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the City of Renton is completing the necessary environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the NHPA. ICF International is assisting the City in meeting these requirements, and has conducted a cultural resources survey for the undertaking. The study is comprised of archaeological investigations and historic resources survey at each of the three project locations. A copy of the resulting survey report summarizing the findings is attached. The investigations identified no historic properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places located in the established Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the undertaking. Based on these findings, we have concluded that the proposed undertaking would have "no effect" on historic properties in the APE. With this letter, we would like to initiate formal consultation with you under Section 106 of the NHPA, and invite you to comment on our determination of the undertaking's proposed APE and our finding that the undertaking would have no effect on historic properties. We understand and respect the sensitive nature of cultural resources and traditional cultural properties and will not disseminate any specific site or area location information to the general public. Such information will be withheld from any public documentation prepared for the undertaking. Renton City Hall . 1055 South Grady Way a Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Thank you for your assistance with this review. Please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-6578 should you have any questions. Sincerely, City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Gregg Zimm7rrmyan, Administrator Public Works Departme Mark Peterson, Administrator Fire & Emergency Service Department Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department K-�/Va vV—� Alex Pietsch, Administrator Community and Economic Development Department Enclosure: Cultural Resources Survey Report Author: Alexander E. Stevenson, J. Tait Elder, MA, Melissa Cascella, MA, and Christopher Hetzel, MA Title of Report: Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three Project Sites in the Renton Susnet Terrace Neighborhood Date of Report: February County(ies): King Section: 9 Township: 23 Range: 5E Quad: Mercer Island 47122-E2 and Renton 47122-D2 Acres: Approximately 3.89 acres PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) 6a Yes Historic Property Export Files submitted? ❑ Yes M No Not Applicable Archaeological Sites)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? ❑ Yes M No TCP(s) found? n Yes M No Replace a draft? ❑ Yes M No Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? F] Yes # M No DAHP Archaeological Site #: CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT DEVELOPMENT OF THREE PROJECT SITES IN THE RENTON SUNSET TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD PREPARED FOR: City of Renton NEPA Responsible Entity and SEPA Lead Agency Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 In partnership with Renton Housing Authority 2900 Northeast 10th Street Renton, Washington 98056 PREPARED BY: Alexander E. Stevenson, J. Tait Elder, MA, Melissa Cascella, MA, and Christopher Hetzel, MA ICF International 710 Second Avenue, Suite S50 Seattle, WA 98104 Contact: Christopher Hetzel 206.801.2817 February 2011 I F VITEN KATI O DIAL Alexander E. Stevenson, J. Tait Elder, MA, Melissa Cascella, MA, and Christopher Hetzel, MA. 2011. Cultural Resources Survey Report— Development of Three Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood. February. (ICF 593.10) Seattle, WA. Prepared for City of Renton, in partnership with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Contents Chapter1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1-1 ProjectDescription.................................................................................................................1-1 ProjectBackground................................................................................................................1-1 Personnel...................................................................................................................1-1 Location................ ..................................................................................................... 1-1 Area of Potential Effects............................................................................................1-2 RegulatoryContext ...... ............................................................................................. .1-2 Chapter 2 Environmental and Cultural Setting................................................................................... 2-1 EnvironmentalSetting............................................................................................................2-1 GeologicBackground.................................................................................................2-1 Floraand Fauna.........................................................................................................2-1 CulturalSetting ....................................................................................................................... 2-1 Precontact................................................................................................................. 2-1 Ethnographic and Ethnohistoric................................................................................2-2 HistoricContext.........................................................................................................2-3 Chapter 3 Literature Review and Consultation.................................................................................. 3-1 Existing Data and Background Data.......................................................................................3-1 RecordsResearch......................................................................................................3-1 Chapter4 Research Design................................................................................................................ 4-1 Objectives and Expectations ................................ ........... ....... ................................................ 4-1 ResearchMethods..................................................................................................................4-1 Archaeological Investigations....................................................................................4-1 Historical Resources Survey......................................................................................4-2 Chapter5 Results.............................................................................................................................. 5-1 Archaeological Investigations................................................................................................. 5-1 Kirkland Ave NE between 15th and 16th .................. ................................................ 5-1 2902 NE 12th Street..................................................................................................5-1 1104 Harrington Avenue NE ............. ........................ .................. ............................... 5-1 Historic Resources Survey...................................................................................................... 5-2 Summaryof Results................................................................................................................ 5-2 Chapter6 Analysis............................................................................................................................ 6-1 Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................................. 7-1 Conclusions......................................................................................... .......7-1 Recommendations.................................................................................................................7-1 Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood I ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Contents Chapter8 References........................................................................................................................ 8-1 Appendix A. Photographs Appendix B. Shovel Test Data Appendix C. Unanticipated Discovery Plan Tables Table 3-1. Cultural Resources Surveys within 1 Mile of the Area of Potential Effects ............................ 3-1 Figures Figure1-1. Project Location .......................... .................................................................................................................. 1-3 Figure 1-2. Area of Potential Effects............................................................................................................................1-4 Figure 5-1. Shovel Test Locations at Kirkland Avenue NE Site........................................................................ 5-3 Figure 5-2. Shovel Test Locations at 2902 NE 12th Street Site........................................................................ 5-4 Figure 5-3. Shovel Test Locations at 1104 Harrington Avenue NE Site ........................................................ 5-5 Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood !I ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations APE Area of Potential Effects APN Assessor Parcel Number BP before present CFR Code of Federal Regulations City City of Renton DAHP Washington State Department of Archaeology and historic Preservation GPS global positioning system HUD U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRHP National Register of Historic Places RHA Renton Housing Authority SEPA Washington State Environmental Policy Act SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer USC United States Code WHR Washington Heritage Register WISAARD Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Database Cultural Resources Survey Report—development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood �� ICF 00593.10 Chapter 1 Introduction Project Description The City of Renton (City) and the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) are proposing a series of activities to revitalize an area known as the Sunset Area Community, located in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) east of Interstate 405 in the city of Renton, Washington. The activities would include the redevelopment of three separate properties in the Sunset Terrace neighborhood (proposed projects). Each of the proposed projects is anticipated to receive federal funding from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 United States Code [USC] 470 et seq.). In accordance with specific statutory authority and HUD's regulations at Section 24 Part 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the City is completing the necessary environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 4321-4347) and Section 106 of the NHPA. ICF International CICF) conducted a cultural resources study for each of the three projects, consolidated in this report, to assist the City in fulfilling these requirements. The studies comprised archaeological investigations and historic resources surveys at each of the three project sites. The proposed projects would take place at three locations: on Kirkland Avenue NE between 15th and 16th streets; at 2902 NE 12th Street; and 1104 Harrington Avenue NE. Parcels at each of these locations would be redeveloped for either multifamily housing units, or, in the case of the Harrington Avenue NE property, potentially a building intended for institutional use (e.g., government office). Project Background Personnel Christopher Hetzel, MA, architectural historian, served as cultural lead for this project and principal investigator for the consideration of built environment resources. J. Tait Elder, MA, archaeologist, was principal investigator for archaeology. Alexander Stevenson led the field crew during the archaeological investigations. Melissa Cascella, MA, assisted the principal investigators in drafting this cultural resources survey report, and Patrick Reed assisted with the field investigation and literature search. Location The proposed projects are located in the city of Renton, King County, Washington, in the Northwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 23, Range 5 East (Figure 1-1). It is in an area known as the Sunset Area Community, situated in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard, east of Interstate 405. The project activities would include redevelopment of the following properties: Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood �_1 icF 00593.10 City of Renton Introduction • the Renton Highlands Library property at 2902 Northeast 12th Street (Assessor Parcel Number [APNj: 7227802040); vacant lots on Kirkland Avenue between NE 15th and NE 16th streets (APNs: 7227800200, 7227800185 and 7227800190.; and • Sunset Court Park at 1104 Harrington Avenue NE (APN: 7227801781) Area of Potential Effects The Area of Potential Effects (APE) is defined as the geographic area or areas within which the proposed projects may directly or indirectly cause change of character or use of historic properties (i.e., archaeological sites, traditional cultural properties, and/or built environment resources). It includes the horizontal and vertical extents of the project activities at the three project sites (Figure 1-2). The depth of the anticipated ground disturbance would vary depending on the design the proposed development. Regulatory Context Federal, state, and local regulations recognize the public's interest in cultural resources and the public benefit of preserving them. These laws and regulations require analysts to consider how a project might affect cultural resources and to take steps to avoid or reduce potential damage to them. A cultural resource can be considered as any property valued (e.g., monetarily, aesthetically, religiously) by a group of people. Valued properties can be historical in character or date to the prehistoric past (i.e., the time prior to written records). The proposed projects require federal funding and, therefore, must satisfy the requirements established under NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA. The NHPA is the primary mandate governing projects under federal jurisdiction that might affect cultural resources. The purpose of this report is to identify and evaluate cultural resources in the APE, fulfilling the requirements of NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA, and to assess the potential effects of the proposed projects on cultural resources. Federal National Environmental Policy Act NEPA requires the federal government to carry out its plans and programs in such a way as to preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage by considering, among other things, unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(3)) and the degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(8)). Although NEPA does not define standards specific to cultural resource impact analyses, the implementing regulations of NEPA (40 CFR 1502.25) state that, to the fullest extent possible, "agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with environmental impact analyses and related surveys and studies required by ... the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470 et seq.)." Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 1 Z iCF 00593.10 11 rk City of I 8 1' I I �Figure 1-1 ICF Project Location and Area of Potential Effects INIERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Survey Report - Development of Three Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood XIF 11M I V.mjCityLimits Area of Potential Effects ; _ 1, ! " "� ' .: ` fi. - 0 1,000 2.000 Feet 0 21�0 4CU N ZW- ,r'/1 IFrArr FPQ 11 rk City of I 8 1' I I �Figure 1-1 ICF Project Location and Area of Potential Effects INIERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Survey Report - Development of Three Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 1• ! .,... (:.mj City Limits � 0 y ' QArea of Potential Effects - N o f 0 zoo 400 y Feet --- ''m. ® Meters D SQ 100 4 ' NE I Vic wt w ! ILI a 0` rn U \. Q w Z ; W o Source: City of Renton; USDA (2009) ' S � Figure 1 'CF Area of Potential Effects INTERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Survey Report - Development of Three Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood City of Renton Introduction Although NEPA statutes and implementing regulations do not contain detailed information concerning cultural resource impact analyses, Section 106 of the NHPA, with which NEPA must be coordinated, details standards and processes for such analyses. The implementing regulations of Section 106 states, "Agency officials should ensure that preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or an EIS and record of decision (ROD) includes appropriate scoping, identification of historic properties, assessment of effects upon them, and consultation leading to resolution of any adverse effects" (36 CFR 800.8[a] [31). Section 106, therefore, typically forms the crux of federal agencies' NEPA cultural resources impact analyses and the identification, consultation, evaluation, effects assessment, and mitigation required for both; NEPA and Section 106 compliance should be coordinated and completed simultaneously. This practice is followed in the present analysis. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the effects of undertakings (acts which are federally funded, approved, or take place on federally administered lands) that have the potential to affect any district, site, building, structure, or object that is listed or is eligible for listing in the NRHP. Under Section 106, the lead federal agency must provide an opportunity for the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), affected tribes, and other stakeholders to comment. Pursuant to the HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 58, the City is authorized to assume responsibility for environmental review, decision making, and action that would otherwise apply HUD under NEPA, which includes NEPA lead agency responsibility. The Section 106 process is codified in 36 CFR 800 and consists of four basic steps: Initiation of the process by coordinating with other environmental reviews, consultation with the SHPO, identification and consultation with interested parties, and identification of points in the process to seek input from the public and to notify the public of proposed actions. Identification of cultural resources and evaluation of these resources for NRHP eligibility (the process for which is explained below), resulting in the identification of historic properties. 3. Assessment of effects of the project on historic properties. 4. Resolution of adverse affects which includes continued consultation with SHPO/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer and other interested parties and mitigation measures, such as public outreach or data recovery excavation. An adverse effect on a historic property is found when an activity may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of the historic property that render it eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The alteration of characteristics is considered an adverse effect if it may diminish the integrity of the historic property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. The assessment of effects on historic properties is conducted in accordance with the guidelines set forth in 36 CFR 800.5. National Register of Historic Places First authorized by the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the NRHP was established by the NHPA as "an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments; private groups; and citizens to identify the nation's cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 1 5 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Introduction protection from destruction or impairment." The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels, based on the following evaluation criteria (National Register of Historic Places 1997): A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of significant persons in or past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. The guidelines further state that "Ordinarily, birthplaces, cemeteries, or graves of historical figures; properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes; structures that have been moved from their original locations; reconstructed historic buildings; properties primarily commemorative in nature; and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years are not considered eligible for the NRHP", unless they satisfy certain conditions. The NRHP requires that a resource not only meet one of these criteria, but that it must also possess integrity. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey historical significance. The evaluation of a resource's integrity must be grounded in an understanding of that resource's physical characteristics and how those characteristics relate to its significance. The NRHP recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define the integrity of a property, including: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. An adverse effect on a historic property is found when an activity may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of the historic property that render it eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The alteration of characteristics is considered an adverse effect if it could diminish the integrity of the historic property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. The assessment of effects on historic properties is conducted in accordance with the guidelines set forth in 36 CFR 800.5. State Washington State Environmental Policy Act The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that all major actions sponsored, funded, permitted, or approved by state and/or local agencies be planned so that environmental considerations—such as impacts on cultural resources—are considered when state -agency -enabled projects affect properties of historical, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance (Washington Administrative Code 197-11-960). These regulations closely resemble NEPA. Under SEPA, the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) is the specified agency with the technical expertise to consider the effects of a proposed action on cultural resources and to provide formal recommendations to local governments and other state agencies for appropriate treatments or actions. The degree to which an action may adversely affect districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP is the primary criterion for determining significant impacts under SEPA. Secondary criteria include whether an alternative has the potential to affect districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three 1-6 February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood icF 00593.10 City of Renton Introduction listed in or eligible for listing in the Washington Heritage Register (WHR), the state equivalent of the NRHP. Washington Heritage Register The WHR is an official listing of historically significant sites and properties found throughout the state. The list is maintained by DAHP and includes districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that have been identified and documented as being significant in local or state history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture. To qualify for placement on the WHR, the resource must meet the following criteria. • A building, site, structure or object must be at least 50 years old. If newer, the resource should have documented exceptional significance. • The resource should have a high to medium level of integrity (i.e., it should retain important character -defining features from its historic period of construction). • The resource should have documented historical significance at the local, state, or federal level. Sites listed on the NRHP are automatically added to the WHR; hence, a separate nomination form does not need to be completed. Governor's Executive Order 05-05 Washington State Executive Order 05-05—which requires state agencies with capital improvement projects to integrate DAHP, the Governor's Office of Indian Affairs, and concerned tribes into their capital project planning processes --was signed into action by Governor Chris Gregoire in November 2005. All state agency capital construction projects or land acquisitions, not otherwise reviewed under federal law, must comply with this executive order, if the projects or acquisitions have the potential to affect cultural resources. Agencies with projects or acquisitions subject to review under the executive order must consult with DAHP and concerned tribes and invite their participation in project planning. If cultural resources are present, then reasonable steps to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential effects must be taken. Other Archaeological Resource laws Other state laws that govern the protection of archaeological resources include: RCW 27.44, Indian Graves and Records, provides protection for Native American graves and burial grounds, encourages voluntary reporting of said sites when they are discovered, and mandates a penalty for disturbance or desecration of such sites. • RCW 27.53, Archaeological Sites and Resources, governs the protection and preservation of archaeological sites and resources and establishes DAHP as the administering agency for these regulations. • RCW 36.70A.020 includes a goal to "Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures that have historical, cultural, and archaeological significance." Cities planning under the Washington State Growth Management Act must consider and incorporate this historic preservation goal. • RCW 68.60, Abandoned and Historic Cemeteries and Historic Graves, provides for the protection and preservation of abandoned and historic cemeteries and historic graves. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development cfThree February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 1 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Local The City currently does not have a local historic preservation ordinance. Introduction Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 1 $ ICF 00593.10 Chapter 2 Environmental and Cultural Setting Environmental Setting Geologic Background The APE is located within the Puget Lowland, a structural and topographic basin that lies between the Cascade Range and Olympic Mountains. The modern topography of the Puget Lowland is primarily the result of surface scouring and moraine formation caused by the most recent glacial advance, known as the Vashon stade of the Fraser glaciation, which took place between 14,000 and 20,000 years before present (BP) (Booth et al. 2009; Easterbrook 2003). As a result of this glacial activity, the APE is characterized as a moderately glacial drift upland, composed of glacial till (Mullineaux 1965). In the modern era, the surface of the APE has been modified to accommodate for development. Flora and Fauna The APE is located in the Puget Sound area subtype western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) vegetation zone. Softwoods such as Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menzesii), western hemlock, and western red cedar (Thuja plicata) are the dominant tree species in the region; hardwoods such as red alder (Alnus rubra) and bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) are generally subordinate and found near water courses or riparian habitats. Garry oak (Quercus garryana) groves are found at lower elevations. In some areas, stands of pines (Pinus spp.) are major forest constituents, along with Douglas -fir (Franklin and Dyrness 1988:72). Understory shrubs with potential food and resource value in the western hemlock zone include, but are not limited to, swordfern (Polystichum muritum), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium), vine maple (Acer circinatum), huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.), blackberry (Rebus spp.), ocean spray (Holodiscu discolor), salal (Gaultheria shallon), blueberries and huckleberries (Vaccinium sp.), wapato (Sagittaria latifolia) and red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa). Terrestrial faunal resources in the region include, but are not limited to, mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cereus elaphus), cougar (Puma concolor), wolf (Canis lupus), coyote (Canis latrans), black bear (Ursus americanus), squirrels (Scirius sp.), muskrat (Ondatra sp.), and raccoon (Procyon lotor) (Dalquest 1948). Cultural Setting Precontact Cultural developments in the Puget Sound area have been summarized by a number of reviewers (Kidd 1964; Greengo and Houston 1970; Nelson 1990; Larson and Lewarch 1995; Ames and Maschner 1999; Blukis Onat et al. 2001; Forsman and Lewarch 2001), and most recently by Kopper] (2004). The archaeological record and cultural histories of the prehistory of Puget Sound and Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 2-1 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Environmental and Cultural Setting surrounding areas generally divide the prehistoric cultural sequence into multiple phases or periods from about 13,000 BP to AD 1700. These phases are academic in nature and do not necessarily reflect tribal viewpoints. A summary of the phases is provided below, based on the periods proposed by Kopperl (2004). • Paleo-Indian Period (11,000 to 8,000 BP). Generalized resource development in a post -glacial environment. Site contents consist of large lithic bifaces and bone technology. • Early Period (8,000 to 5,000 BP). Inland sites with lithic artifacts, rarely found with associated plant or animal remains, or hearth structures. • Middle Period (5,000 BP to 2,500 BP). Increase socioeconomic complexity, exploitation of a wider range of environments, and utilization of marine resources. • Late Period (2,500 BP to European contact). The establishment of large semi -sedentary populations, increased diversity of hunting, fishing, plant processing, and woodworking tools, followed by European contact, Ethnographic and Ethnohistoric Ethnographic information recorded during the early part of the twentieth century indicates that the APE is located within the territory of a Native American group traditionally known as the Duwamish. The Duwamish people traditonally spoke the Southern Lushootseed language, which is one of two Coast Salish languages spoken in the Puget Sound (Suttles and Lane 1990:486). They inhabited areas that encompassed Salmon Bay, Lake Union, Portage Bay, Union Bay, Lake Washington, and their tributary streams (Blukis Onat and Kiers 2007:6). The Duwamish people hunted deer, elk, bear, ducks, geese, and other game animals and waterfowl, when available. Inland of the Puget Sound, they fished for salmon when available (Duwamish Tribe 2010). Plant foods such as sprouts, roots, bulbs, berries, and nuts were collected as well (Suttles and Lane 1990:489) Although ethnographic village locations and place names are documented south of the APE along the Cedar River, no ethnographically documented villages or place names are known to exist within the the APE (Hilbert et al. 2001) European American settlement of the Puget Sound area in the 1850s severely disrupted the Duwamish way of life. Early contact between the Duwamish and European Americans was cordial, and the Duwamish were essential to the survival of many early settlers. As the city of Seattle and the surrounding towns grew, natural resources on which the Duwamish relied became increasingly scarce and other traditional areas became inaccessible as a result of development. Further urban expansion, combined with the banning of native urban residence in 1865, resulted in many of the Duwamish people moving away from, or being forced out of, the Seattle area. Many of the Duwamish people went to reservations where they had relatives, including the Muckleshoot, Suquamish, Tulalip, Lummi, or Snoqualmie reservations (Blukis Onat et al. 2005). Today, some of the descendents of the Duwamish people are now members of several federally recognized tribes in including the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Suquamish, Tulalip Tribe of Indians, and Snoqualmie Tribe, whereas others remain enrolled with the Duwamish Tribe, although it is not a federally recognized tribe (Duwamish Tribe 2010). Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 2 2 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Historic Context Early Beginnings Environmental and Cultural Setting The first European American settler in the Renton area was Henry Tobin, who arrived in 1853 and established a 320 -acre claim on the Black River (Buerge 1989:22-24; City of Renton 1989:4). Tobin, together with three partners, subsequently established the Duwamish Coal Company and built the area's first sawmill to obtain the lumber necessary for the mining tunnel supports. The sawmill was in operation by 1854, but conflicts with Native American groups in the region soon caused an end to this early business venture (Buerge 1989:22). Over the few short years of European American settlement in the Puget Sound area, Native Americans had witnessed areas important to their traditional lifeways occupied and altered by the new settlers (Thrush 2007:79-80). After establishment of the Washington Territory in 1853, the new territorial governor began drafting agreements that required the removal of the area's remaining Native American populations, to make the land available for further European American settlement. Enacted in two councils called the Medicine Creek Treaty and the Point Elliott Treaty, the agreements called for lands to be handed over to the state in exchange for rights to traditional gathering areas, money and the relocation of native peoples to designated reservations (Buchanan 1859; Buerge 1989:22-23; Pierce 1855; Slauson 2006:3). After signing the Point Elliot Treaty, local tribal chief Keokuck returned to the Black River area to find his people deeply divided between feelings of friendship to settlers they knew in the area, and feelings of resentment and betrayal for being forced to surrender their traditional homelands. Several regional tribes, including the Yakama and Wenatchee, united together to confront encroaching settlers, resulting in the conflict referred to as the Yakima Indian War of 1855. Crossing the mountains, warriors raided settlements and even launched an attack on the city of Seattle itself. After the Treaty of Point Elliott was ratified by Congress in 1859, the remaining Duwamish living along the Black River were forced from their land and relocated to reservations (Buerge 1989:23). The Birth of Renton After the signing of the Treaty of Point Elliott and the forced removal of the native Duwamish, an increasing number of settlers entered the area (Buerge 1989:23). In 1856, Erasmus M. Smithers acquired Tobin's earlier claim by marrying his widow, and purchased an additional 160 acres in 1857 (Buerge 1989:24; City of Renton 1989:4; Slauson 2006:2). Smithers' substantial land holdings eventually became the center of a burgeoning community that would eventually form the city of Renton. During the 1860s, several additional families settled in the area, and schools and a post office were established. Rich deposits of coal found in the mountains surrounding the small community in the 1860s and 1870s furthered its prosperity. Wealthy entrepreneurs, such as Captain William Renton, took interest in the area. Renton, who had built an enormous and prosperous sawmill on Bainbridge Island, invested heavily in the area's coal and transportation industries. These investments allowed the fledgling community's economy to boom (Buerge 1989:24-27; Slauson 2006:6). In 1875, Smithers and two partners filed the town plat for the new community and named it Renton in honor of the investor's financial backer (The Boeing Company et al. 2001:5; Buerge 1989:27; City of Renton 1989:4; Slauson 2006:7). The coal -mining and logging industries continued to draw new Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 3 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Environmental and Cultural Setting residents to the area (Buerge 1989:30-32; City of Renton 1989:4-5). In 1875, less than 50 people lived in Renton, but by 1900, 1,176 people called it home (City of Renton 19$9:4). Renton was fully incorporated on September 6, 1901 (The Boeing Company et al. 2001:5; Buerge 1989.37). Industrial Development At the turn of the twentieth century, the area's coal -mining industry began to decline in importance, soon to be replaced by a new set of industries. The discovery of superior quality clay deposits at the south end of Lake Washington led to the establishment of the Renton Clay Works in 1902. By 1917, this company was the largest brick manufacturing plant in the world (The Boeing Company et al. 2001:5; City of Renton 1989:5). Addressing the growing needs of the railroad, logging, and later military during the two World Wars, the Pacific Car & Foundry was established during this period, supplying steel, pig iron, and other equipment for the production of railroad boxcars, tanks, and later, wing spans for aircraft. The company acquired Kenworth Motor Trucks in 1945 and Peterbilt Motors in 1958, merging them into one company called PACCAR in 1972 (City of Renton 1989:5). One of the greatest influences on the development of Renton occurred during World War II with the establishment of the Boeing Company aircraft manufacturing plant at the south end of Lake Washington (City of Renton 1989:6). Built in 1940, the Renton Boeing plant manufactured B-29 Superfortress bombers and increased exponentially in size through the course of the war (The Boeing Company eta]. 2001:12). At its height in 1942, the plant employed 44,754 people and produced approximately 90 planes each month, with a total of 6,981 planes completed before the war's end (Slauson 2006:126). Development in Renton boomed with the flood of jobs and new residents brought by Boeing and other manufacturers. After the war, Boeing continued to employ as many as 35,000 workers and PACCAR was the city's second largest employer (Buerge 1989:82). Dubbed the "Hub City of Enterprise," Renton was one of the most important manufacturing centers in the state at this time (Buerge 1989:82). In the postwar era, new housing, retail shops, schools, churches, and civic services were established to provide for the population increases, and the federal government provided nearly $4 million in funds for the construction of new housing alone (Buerge 1989:75-79). Boeing continued to play a prominent role in Renton's economy through the rest of the twentieth century, producing commercial airplanes including the 737, 747, 757, and 767 and employing as many 25,000 (City of Renton 1989:6). Today, Renton's economy is shifting towards a greater economic diversification with technology firms, microbreweries, and the Wizards of the Coast, a game and card company, emerging as important sectors of the economy (The Boeing Company et al. 2001:19; Buerge 1989:88). Renton Highlands Despite Renton's rapid growth in the early twentieth century, the area encompassing the APE remained largely undeveloped until the 1940s. The area was logged starting in 1883 (Slauson 2006:42) and Primary State Highway 2 (PSH 2), later known as the Sunset Highway or SR 900, was established just south of the APE from 1909 through 1910. The route was first paved in 1920, becoming the principal highway between Seattle and the Snoqualmie Pass prior to the construction of the Lake Washington Floating Bridge in 1940 (Buerge 1989:67; Morning Olympian 1909:3). Although development in Renton's downtown grew with the arrival of the highway, the area in the vicinity of the APE remained primarily rural. With the arrival of the Renton Boeing plant and its tens Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 2_q ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Environmental and Cultural Setting of thousands of workers in the 1940s, however, housing development exploded. Many of Renton's existing residential neighborhoods were first established during World War II. During World War II, population migrations to urban centers combined with the rapid development of wartime industries caused increasing demand for housing that was much greater than in prior decades (Madison 1971:i -ii). Although the Federal Housing Administration was initially created during the 1930s, it was not until the postwar era that the federal government enacted "the most significant housing legislation ever passed" to meet the growing housing needs (Lord 1977:10). In the Housing Act of 1949, a goal was set by the federal government to provide "a decent home and suitable living environment for every American family" (Lord 1977:10). The act outlined an ambitious goal, authorizing the construction of 810,000 new homes over the next 6 years (Lord 1977:10). In Renton, the federal government embarked on a series of housing projects (Buerge 1989:75). Known as the "Highlands" south of the highway and as the "North Highlands" north of the highway, the development of these two neighborhoods relied heavily on federal loans, grants, and other programs (City of Renton 1989:34). During this period, the Highlands development centered on housing projects while the North Highlands constructed a mix of commercial and multi -use family housing along the highway (City of Renton 1989:34--35). Overnight, retail and social services emerged to serve the bustling new community. The Highlands area received its own post office and fire station in the fall of 1943 (Slauson 2006:45, 85), and a large recreational complex complete with tennis courts, ball fields, and a small gymnasium was completed in 1949 (Slauson 2006:81). Later improvements included the move of a prominent Methodist church from downtown Renton to the Highlands area in 1958 and construction of a new branch of the library in 1979 (Slauson 2006:62, 97). By 1975, the area was almost fully developed (City of Renton 1989:34-35; Renton History Museum 1975). Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 5 ICF 00593.10 Chapter 3 Literature Review and Consultation Existing Data and Background Data Records Research A record search was conducted using the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Database (WISAARD) to identify previously documented archaeological, ethnographic, and historic resources within 1 mile of the APE. WISAARD contains all records and reports on file with DAHP recorded since 1995. No previously completed cultural resources studies and no previously documented archaeological sites are located in the APE. One historic resource, the building at 2615 NE Sunset Boulevard, was previously identified within 1 mile of the APE. The building's NRHP eligibility was not previously evaluated. Eleven previously completed cultural resources surveys and one archaeological site were identified within a 1 -mile radius of the APE boundary. A summary of these cultural resources studies is provided in Table 3-1. Table 3-1. Cultural Resources Surveys within 1 Mile of the Area of Potential Effects NADB # Authors/Year Report Title Description Cultural Resources 1339887 1352447 1351994 1353126 1348842 Juell 2001 Bundy 2008 Goetz 2008 Chatters 2009 Hodges 2007a Cultural Resources Inventory of the proposed Washington Light Lanes Project Interstate 405 Corridor Survey: Phase I Interstate 5 to State Route 169 Improvements Project Archaeological Assessment, Dayton Avenue NE/NE 22nd Street Stormwater System Project Recovery of Two Early 20th Century Graves from Renton, WA Cultural Resources Literature search and windshield survey of I-405 corridor Survey of I-405 corridor and shovel testing Excavated a total of six shovel probes Exhumed remains of young male and older probable female from residential area Monitoring of 20, 4 inch bore holes None None None Site 45KI686, NRHP eligible, but site completely removed through excavation None Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three 1 February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood ICFO0593.10 City of Renton Literature Review and Consultation NADB # Authors/Year Report Title Description Cultural Resources Assessment for through fill the Proposed Lowe's of Renton 1349666 Stipe 2007 Verizon Wireless Records search None SEA Renton Voc- and pedestrian Tech Cellular archaeological Tower Cultural survey Resources Review 1349929 Miss 2007 Archaeological Monitoring of None Monitoring for excavated the South Lake trenches Washington Roadway Improvement Project 1349789 Hodges 2007b Archaeological 29 backhoe None Resource trenches Assessment for excavated through the South Lake fill Washington Roadway Improvement Project 1340681 Cooper 2001 Antennas on an Survey around None Existing footprint of Transmission transmission Tower 12612 tower and one Southeast 96th shovel test Street 1354969 Elder et al. 2010 Cultural Archaeological NRHP eligible Resources Survey pedestrian survey; property identified Report - Potential excavation of at 2825 NE Sunset Sunset Terrace shovel probes; Boulevard Redevelopment and historic Subarea and NE resources survey Sunset Boulevard NADB = National Archaeological Database One known archaeological site is located within a 1 -mile radius of the APE. Site 45KI686 is a disturbed historic internment, which contained European -American remains in a coffin (Rooke 2008). The site is located northwest of the APE. The NRHP eligible property at 2825 NE Sunset Boulevard consists of a former Safeway supermarket building, situated southeast of the APE. It is eligible under NRHP Criterion C for its architectural design. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 3 2 ICF 00593.10 Chapter Research Design Objectives and Expectations Review of existing archaeological records of the area within 1 mile of the APE reveals that all known archaeological sites are located in areas for which the geomorphology indicates a high probability for containing precontact archaeological sites (e.g., floodplains and lake margins). In contrast, the APE is located on a glacial till plain, which has a low probability for precontact archaeological sites. Precontact archaeological sites on upland terraces tend to be very old relative to valley floor sites, and contain lithic artifacts, with rare instances of bone or plant remains. Analysis of previous geologic research conducted in the vicinity of the APE reveals that sediments deposited during the Pleistocene epoch should be encountered at or near the modern ground surface in areas that have not been modified in the historic or modern period. Since there is only evidence for human occupation in the Puget Sound area during the Holocene epoch, all cultural materials should be encountered on or just below ground surface in areas that have not been modified during the historic or modern period, or at the fill/naturally deposited sediment interface in areas that have been filled during the historic and modern period. Given the examination of the existing archaeological and geologic information, the likelihood for encountering prehistoric archaeological sites was considered very low. It was expected that any precontact archaeological sites encountered during archaeological investigations would be surface lithic scatters. Where topsoil has been removed, it was expected that no archaeological materials would be encountered. Research Methods Archaeological investigations ICF archaeologists conducted a cultural resources survey of the APE, using standard DAHP-accepted methods appropriate for finding and recording cultural resources. The field survey included walking 20 meter transects across each of the three parts of the APE and excavating shovel tests to find exposed and buried archaeological deposits and historic features. The purpose of this survey was to identify any visible archaeological materials and to characterize the vertical extent of each of the three parts of the APE. Shovel test pits (50 centimeters in diameter) were excavated in areas not covered in asphalt, concrete, buildings, or other impenetrable modern features. The pits were excavated to the depth of Pleistocene sediments or dense gravel deposits of obstructing rocks, when encountered. In some shovel tests, excavations exceeded the depth of Pleistocene sediments. These units were excavated to confirm that Pleistocene sediments had not been redeposited over younger Holocene -aged sediments. All shovel tests were excavated by hand and sediments screened through 6 -millimeter (0.25 -inch) mesh hardware cloth. Upon completion of excavation, shovel tests were photographed using a digital camera and backfilled. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood � ; ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Research Design Representative photographs are presented in Appendix A. Shovel tests were mapped using a Trimble GeoXH global positioning system (GPS) unit. Historical Resources Survey The historic resources survey involved examining and photographing buildings and structures in the APE determined to be 45 years of age or older. None were identified in the APE. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 4 ICC 00593.10 Chapter 5 Results Archaeological Investigations On February 2, 2011, ICF archaeologists Alexander E. Stevenson and Patrick Reed conducted an archaeological investigation of the three parts of the APE, under the supervision of J. Tait Elder, MA. The investigation included pedestrian survey of each of the parcels and the excavation of 12 shovel test pits (Figure 5-1). A summary of these shovel tests is included in Appendix A. Kirkland Ave NE between 15th and 16th A pedestrian survey revealed no surface evidence of archaeological deposits. Five shovel tests were excavated in this portion of the APE (STP1-STP5). Three of these STPs (1-3) consisted of a weakly developed "A" horizon, in approximately 20 centimeters of coarse sand with rounded gravels. Below this, approximately 30 centimeters of a dark gray to black coarse sand with modern debris, such as bottle glass and brick fragments, were observed. These shovel tests were terminated in coarse olive brown sand with rounded gravels, indicative of glacial outwash. STPs 4 and 5 were similar in sediment characteristics but no modern debris layer was encountered within them. These STPs were terminated in gray brown glacial outwash which exhibited no evidence of soil development. 2902 NE 12th Street A portion of this parcel was covered by asphalt, concrete, and a building, which impeded excavation. Pedestrian survey revealed no surface evidence of archaeological deposits. Two shovel test pits were excavated in this portion of the APE (STP6 and STP7). Highly compacted, gray glacial till was encountered at a depth of 9 centimeters below ground surface in STP 6. This sediment was not encountered in STP 7, which consisted of approximately 60 centimeters of fill, with a weakly developed "A" horizon. Below this fill level was coarse brown or olive brown sand with rounded gravels that extended to a depth of greater than 150 centimeters below ground surface and represented glacial outwash sediments. Weathering characteristic of a "B" horizon was noted throughout this profile, indicating that sediments probably represented a fill event. Gray brown glacial outwash sediments were noted from 150 to 175 centimeters below ground surface in this shovel test pit. No cultural resources were observed within either of these shovel test pits. 1104 Harrington Avenue NE A pedestrian survey revealed no surface evidence of archaeological deposits. Five shovel test pits were excavated in this area (STP8-STP12). A weakly developed "A" horizon was present at the top of each STP, followed by a layer of dark gray or black sediment with modern and historic debris. This debris included bottle glass fragments, brick fragments, and miscellaneous Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 5.1 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Results metal. Based on the presence of melted glass and charcoal this debris had at some point been burned. Coarse brown sand with rounded gravels, representing glacial outwash sediments, was observed below this debris Iayer. Weathering characteristic of a "B" horizon was noted in three STPs (10, 11, and 12) to a depth of approximately 65 centimeters below ground surface. Evidence of this soil development was not observed within the other STPs (8 and 9) as a result of historic and modern debris. STP 8 was terminated on highly compacted sediment. The remaining STPs were terminated in gray brown glacial outwash which exhibited no evidence of soil development. Historic Resources Survey The reconnaissance -level historic resources survey revealed the presence of only one developed property within the APE. This property was the Renton Highlands Library located at 2902 NE 12th Street. The building is less than 50 years old, according to the King County Tax Assessor. Summary of Results A pedestrian survey of the APE revealed no surface evidence of archaeological deposits. Shovel test pit excavations revealed the presence of modern/historic fill events in two portions of the APE (Kirkland Avenue NE and 1104 Harrington Avenue NE). A weakly developed "A" horizon was noted in each of the three portions of the APE, and the presence of "B" horizons developed within glacial outwash sediments was also noted in each location. A heavy amount of landscape disturbance was noted as evidenced by soil development and debris deposits in fill contexts. No NRHP-eligible buildings were identified within the APE. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 5_Z ICF 00593.10 Figure 5-1 1CFShovel Test Locations at Kirkland Avenue NE Site INTERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Survey Report - Development of Three Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood IIIWMM� Figure 5-2 'CF Shovel Test Locations at 2902 NE 12th Street Site INTERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Survey Report - Development of Three Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 1CF�r Figure 5-3 Shovel Test Locations at 1150 Harrington Avenue NE Site INTERNATIONAL Cultural Resources Survey Report - Development of Three Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood Chapter 6 Analysis Archaeological investigations in all three portions of the APE revealed that the modern ground surface has been heavily modified. The parcels on Kirkland Avenue were bulldozed after RHA took ownership of the land (Mcarty pers. comm.). The presence of weakly developed "A" horizons in each site with little to no other soil development indicates the removal or disturbance of previously developed soils at each location. The presence of historic and modern debris in fill context provides further evidence that the APE is a heavily modified and disturbed landscape. The sediments in which the "B" horizon formed consist of moderately compacted gravelly silty sand, indicating its likely origin as glacial outwash rather than glacial till. Since the sediments within which soil formation occurred were deposited during the Pleistocene epoch, a period for which there is no record of human occupation in the Puget Sound, excavations were terminated once an intact "B" horizon was encountered. Because all visible surface within the lot has been modified, archaeological excavations revealed weakly developed or absent "A" horizons, and Pleistocene -age sediments are found just below ground surface, the likelihood of discovering intact cultural resources at any of the sites is considered very low, and any discovery would be on or just below the surface. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 6 1 ICF 00593.10 Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions No archaeological sites were identified during the archaeological survey of the APE. Archaeological excavations at each of the sites revealed mixed or imported sediments or soils that would not have the potential to contain archaeological resources. The potential for the discovery of archaeological deposits with in the APE is considered very low. No NRHP-eligible buildings were observed in the APE. Based on the cultural resources investigations, the proposed projects would have no effect on any known NRHP-eligible archaeological resources or historic resources in the APE. Recommendations Because a predevelopment "A" horizon was not identified in the APE, no further archaeological investigations are recommended. If archaeological materials are discovered during ground - disturbing excavations, the contractor will halt excavations in the vicinity of the find and contact DAHP. For DAHP contact information, see the Unanticipated Discovery Plan (Appendix B). If human skeletal remains are discovered, the King County Sheriff and DAHP will be notified immediately. If archaeological materials are uncovered during excavation, the proponent will immediately stop work and notify the City, DAHP, and affected Indian tribes, as outlined in the Unanticipated Discovery Plan (Appendix B]. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 1 ICF 00593.10 Chapter S References Ames, K. M. and D. G. Maschner 1999 Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archaeology and Prehistory. London: Thames & Hudson. Blukis Onat, A. R., M. E. Morgenstein, P. D. LeTourneau, R. P. Stone, J. Kosta, and P. Johnson 2001 Archaeological Investigations atstuwe'vugw—Site4SK1464—ToltRiver, King County, Washington. BOAS, Inc., Seattle, WA. Blukis Onat, A. R., R. A. Kiers, and P. D. LeTourneau 2005 Preliminary Ethnographic and Geoarchaeological Study of the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Project. Report on file at Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle, WA. Blukis Onat, A. R. and R. A. Kiers 2007 Ethnohistoric and Geoarchaeological Study of the SR 520 Corridor and Archaeological Field Investigations in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HDV Project including the Pacific Interchange and Second Montlake Bridge Option, King County, Washington. Report on file at Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle, WA. The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton 2001 Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. King County Journal Newspaper, Kent, Washington. Booth, D. B., K. G. Troost, and S. A. Schimel 2009 Geologic Map of Northeastern Seattle (Part of the Seattle North 7.5'x15' Quadrangle), King County, Washington. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Buchanan, James 1859 Treaty between the United States and the Duwamish, Suquamish, and Other Allied and Subordinate Tribes of Indians in Washington Territory: January 22, 1855, ratified April 11, 1859. Available: <http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/lctext&CISOPTR=15 92&REC=16>. Accessed October 12, 2010. Buerge, David M. 1989 Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, California: Windsor Publications, Inc. Bundy, Barbara E. 2008 Interstate 405 Corridor Survey: Phase I Interstate 5 to State Route 169 Improvements Project Report No. 08-23, Cultural Resources Program. Seattle, WA. Prepared by Washington State Department of Transportation, Environmental Services Office. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three 8-1 February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood ICF 66593.16 City of Renton References Chatters, James 2009 Recovery of Two Early 20th Century Graves from Renton, Washington. AMEC Project No. 8-915-16415-0. Bothell, WA. Prepared for James H. Jacques Construction by AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. City of Renton Department of Community Development, Long Range Planning Section 1989 Community Profile. Renton Department of Community Development, Renton, Washington. Cooper, Jason 2001 Antennas on an Existing Transmission Tower 12612 Southeast 96th Street. SE54XC005A. Bellevue, WA. Prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. Dalquest, W.W. 1948 The Mammals of Washington. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press. Duwamish Tribe 2010 "Culture and History."Available: <http://www.duwamishtribe.org/index.html>. Accessed: October 18, 2010 Easterbrook, D. J. 2003 Cordilleran Ice Sheet Glaciation of the Puget Lowland and Columbia Plateau and Alpine GIaciation of the North Cascade range, Washington, Pages 137-157 in T.W. Swanson (ed.), Western Cordillera and AdjacentAreas. Boulder, CO: The Geological Society of America. Elder, J. T, Melissa Cascella, and Christopher Hetzel 2010 Cultural Resources Survey Report -- Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard. On -file at Washington DAHP, NADB#1354969, Forsman, L. and D. Lewarch 2001 Archaeology of the White River. White River journal: A Newsletter of the White River Valley Museum. April. Available: <http://www. wrvmuseum.org/journal/journal- 0401.htm>. Accessed: July 25, 2006. Franklin, J. F., and C. T. Dyrness 1988 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. Goetz, Linda Naoi, Kara M. Kanaby, Douglas F. Tingwall, and Thomas C. Rust 2008 Dayton Avenue NE/NE 22nd Street Stormwater System Project, Renton, Washington. Seattle, WA. Prepared by Landau Associates for BHC Consultants. Greengo, R. E. and R. Houston 1970 Archaeological Excavations at Marymoor Farm. Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle. Hilbert et al. 2001 Ways of the Lushootseed People Ceremonies & Traditions of North Puget Sound First People, Third Edition. Seattle, WA: Lushootseed Press. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 8-2 fCF00593.10 City of Renton References Hodges, Charles M. 2007a Cultural Resources Assessment for the Proposed Lowe's of Renton Project, Renton, King County, Washington. NWAA Report Number WA 07-014. Seattle, WA. Prepared for PacLand by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. 2007b Archaeological Resource Assessment for the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvement Project, City of Renton, King County, Washington. NWAA Report Number WA06- 055. Seattle, WA. Prepared for the City of Renton by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. Juell, Ken 2001 Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Washington Light Rails Project. NWAA Report WA01-6. Seattle, WA. Prepared by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. Kidd, R. S. 1964 A Synthesis of Western Washington Prehistoryfrom the Prospective of Three Occupational Sites. Unpublished A.A. thesis. Department of Anthropology. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. Kopper[, R. E. 2004 Cultural Resources Clearance Survey, SR5 HOV Lane Construction, 48th Street to Pacific Avenue, Tacoma, Pierce County. Northwest Archaeological Associates and the Environmental History Company. On file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Larson, L. L., and D. E. Lewarch 1995 The Archaeology of West Point, Seattle, Washington: 4,000 Years of Hunter -Fisher - Gatherer Land Use in Southern Puget Sound. Prepared by Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services, Seattle, WA. Lord, Tom Forrester 1977 Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc. Madison, Charles A. 1971 Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc. Miss, Christian J. 2007 Archaeological Monitoring for the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvement Project, City of Renton, King County, Washington. Seattle, WA. Prepared for the City of Renton by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. Morning Olympian 1909 Survey New Renton Seattle Highway. 30 October:3. Olympia, Washington. Mullineaux, D. R. 1965 Geologic map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey National Register of Historic Places. 1997 National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Originally published in 1990. Revised in 1991, 1995, and 1997. Available: <http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrblS>. Cultural Resources survey Report—Development of Three 8-3 February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood ICF 00593.10 City of Renton References Nelson, C. M. 1990 Prehistory of the Puget Sound Region. Pages 481-4$4 in Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7 (Northwest Coast). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Pierce, Franklin 1855 Treaty Between the United States and the Nisqually and other Bands of Indians. Available: <http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/Ictext&CISOPTR=15 74&REC=14>. Accessed: October 12, 2010. Renton History Museum 1975 Renton Highlands, aerial view looking west, Renton, ca. 1975. Avaialble: <http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/imisrenton&CIS0 PTR=240. Accessed: October 13, 2010. Rooke, Laura C. 2008 Site form 45KI786.On-file at the Washington DAHP. Slauson, Morda C. 2006 Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton Historical Society, Renton, WA. Stipe, Frank T. 2007 Verizon Wireless SEA Renton Voc- Tech Cellular Tower Cultural Resources Review. Bothell, WA. Prepared for Verizon Wireless by Tetra Tech Divisions, Inc. Suttles, Wayne, and Barbara Lane 1990 "South Coast Salish". in Sturtevant, William C.. Handbook of North American Indians. 7. Northwest coast. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Thrush, Coll 2007 Native Seattle. Histories From the Crossing -Over Place. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood $-4 ICF 00593.10 Appendix A Photographs Kirkland Avenue NE and NE 16th Street: Overview Looking South, Site of Demolished Duplexes Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood A_1 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Appendix A STP2 with Typical Deposits for this Area Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood A 2 ICF 04593.10 City of Renton Appendix A Renton Highlands Library Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood A 3 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Appendix A STP7 with Auger through Compacted Deposits Cultural Resources Survey Report ---Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood A_4 ICF 00593.10 Cay of Renton Appendix A R Park Between Harrington Avenue NE and Harington Place NE Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood A 5 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton N. STP12 in Park: Typical Deposits for this Area Appendix A Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three A-6 February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood ICF 00593-10 Appendix B Shovel Test Data Test Width Depth # (cm) (cm) Soil Description Artifacts (Yes/No) Comments 1 40 0-25 Dark brown to dark gray coarse, poorly sorted Yes sand with some rounded to subrounded gravels; burned wood, charcoal, etc. 25-44 Grayish brown poorly sorted coarse sand with No rounded to subrounded gravels 44-80 Orange brown poorly sorted coarse sand with No rounded to subrounded gravels 2 43 0-19 Brown -gray coarse poorly sorted sand with Yes rounded gravels, fragments of wood, rootlets 19-47 Grayish brown poorly sorted coarse sand with No rounded to subrounded gravels; rootlets 47-78 Orange brown poorly sorted coarse sand with No rounded to subrounded gravels 3 45 0-15 Dark brown sand with slight silt content No 15-50 Gray brown poorly sorted sand, coarse, with Yes some rounded to subrounded pebbles 4 5 6 7 50-55 Black coarse sand burned abrupt upper No boundary 55-57 Light gray sand highly compacted some No subrounded gravels, abrupt upper boundary 0-11 Dark brown, brown coarse sand with little silt. No some rounded to subrounded gravels, grass/moss rootlets 11-28 Grayish brown poorly sorted coarse sand with No rounded to subrounded gravels 28-90 Orange brown poorly sorted coarse sand with No rounded to subrounded gravels 90-98 Dense gray/alive mottled sand -coarse No 0-11 Dark brown poorly sorted sand and silt No 11-38 Gray -gray brown coarse sand with few No rounded to subrounded gravels 38-40 Dense gray/olive mottled coarse sand No 0-9 Bark -landscaping duff No 9-13 Very compact coarse sand/clay till No Burned glass, glass bottle fragments, brick fragments, marble; modern fill. Glacial outwash Glacial outwash Toothbrush, little to no "A" horizon Glacial outwash Glacial outwash; terminated in primary deposit " x riorizon May be a slight B glass from Pepsi bottle Glacial outwash; primary deposit "A" horizon Charcoal flecks Glacial outwash Glacial outwash Weak "A" horizon Glacial outwash Glacial outwash Fill Glacial till 0-50 Olive brown poorly sorted coarse sand with No Glacial outwash; rounded to subrounded gravels; large root Fill/distrubed Auger 50- Same as above; jumbled fill Yes Aluminum foil at 55 cm 150 150- Light gray brown poorly sorted coarse sand, Yes Glacial outwash; 160 slight silt content, some rounded to primary deposit subrounded gravels Cultural Resources Survey Report ---Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood B 1 ICF 00593.30 City of Renton Appendix B Test Width Depth Artifacts # (cm) (cm) Soil Description (Yes/No) Comments 8 40 0-10 Dark brown, moderate grain sand with No Weak "A" horizon 0 10 11 12 20-23 Olive brown coarse poorly sorted sand fill Yes 23-41 Dark gray brown coarse sand, poorly sorted fill Yes 41-60 Olive brown coarse sand with some rounded to No rounded pebbles to gravel 10-25 Dense/very compact orange-ish brown sand No with gravels; rounded to subround No 25-37 Very dark brown to very dark gray, extremely No Olive brown coarse sand, roots dense rounded compacted coarse sand 0-18 Dark brown medium -coarse sand with high Yes Olive gray to brown coarse sand, moderate to organic content 18-34 Dark olive brown, coarse sand, poorly sorted No to cobbles rounded to subrounded gravels; diffuse; 67-77 Very compact gray to olive gray coarse sand abrupt lower boundary 34--53 Dark brown- black coarse sand with burned Yes material 53-92 Olive brown coarse sand with few subrounded No gravels 92- Olive brown coarse sand with few subrounded No 130 gravels 0-19 Dark brown med-coarse sand with dense No rootlets 19-68 Dark olive brown, coarse sand, poorly sorted; Yes rounded to subrounded gravels 68-89 Gray brown, coarse sand, poorly sorted; No rounded to subrounded gravels 90 Gray/olive mottled coarse sand No dense/compact 0-20 Dark brown coarse sand with organics Yes 20-23 Olive brown coarse poorly sorted sand fill Yes 23-41 Dark gray brown coarse sand, poorly sorted fill Yes 41-60 Olive brown coarse sand with some rounded to No "B" horizon Fill; terminated due to compactness Weak "A" horizon; bricks, glass; Fill Fill Numerous glass fragments, brick; fill Glacial outwash; terminated on cobble "A" horizon Glass fragments to 30 cm Glacial outwash; primary deposit Glass fragments; Weak "A" horizon Glass fragments; "B" horizon Glass fragments "B" horizon Glacial outwash; primary deposit "A" horizon "B" horizon Terminated due to gravels and compactness Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood B-2 ICF 00593.10 subrounded gravels 60-75 Light olive gray coarse sand No No 0-18 Dark brown coarse sand with rootlets 18-49 Olive brown coarse sand, roots dense rounded No gravels to cobbles 49-67 Olive gray to brown coarse sand, moderate to No compact with rounded to subrounded gravels to cobbles 67-77 Very compact gray to olive gray coarse sand No and larger gravels "B" horizon Fill; terminated due to compactness Weak "A" horizon; bricks, glass; Fill Fill Numerous glass fragments, brick; fill Glacial outwash; terminated on cobble "A" horizon Glass fragments to 30 cm Glacial outwash; primary deposit Glass fragments; Weak "A" horizon Glass fragments; "B" horizon Glass fragments "B" horizon Glacial outwash; primary deposit "A" horizon "B" horizon Terminated due to gravels and compactness Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood B-2 ICF 00593.10 Appendix C Unanticipated Discovery Plan Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery of Human Skeletal Remains or Cultural Resources during the Redevelopment of Properties at Kirkland Avenue NE Between 15th and 16th Streets, 2902 NE 12th Street, and 1150 Harrington Avenue NE in Renton, Washington Any human skeletal remains that are discovered during this project will he treated with dignity and respect. A. If any City of Renton employee or any of the contractors or subcontractors believes that he or she has made an unanticipated discovery of human skeletal remains or cultural resources, all work adjacent to the discovery shall cease. The area of work stoppage will be adequate to provide for the security, protection, and integrity of the human skeletal remains, in accordance with Washington State Law. The City of Renton project manager will be contacted. B. The City of Renton project manager or the City of Renton representative will be responsible for taking appropriate steps to protect the discovery. At a minimum, the immediate area will be secured to a distance of thirty (30) feet from the discovery. Vehicles, equipment, and unauthorized personnel will not be permitted to traverse the discovery site. C. If skeletal remains are discovered, the City of Renton will immediately call the King County Sheriffs office, the King County Coroner, and a cultural resource specialist or consultant qualified to identify human skeletal remains. The county coroner will determine if the remains are forensic or non -forensic (whether related to a criminal investigation). The remains should be protected in place until this has been determined. D. If the human skeletal remains are determined to be non -forensic, the King County Coroner will notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. DAHP will take jurisdiction over the remains. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Native American or Non -Native American. DAHP will handle all consultation with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe as to the treatment of the remains. E. If cultural resources are uncovered, such as stone tools or flakes, fire -cracked rocks from a hearth feature, butchered animal bones, or historic -era objects (e.g., patent medicine bottles, milk tins, clay pipes, building foundations), the City of Renton will arrange for a qualified professional archaeologist to evaluate the find. Again, the cultural resources will be protected in place until the archaeologist has examined the find. F. If the cultural resources find is determined to be significant, the City of Renton cultural resource specialist/archaeologist or consulting archaeologist will immediately contact the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribes to seek consultation regarding the eligibility of any further discovery for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three 1 February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 1CF 00593.10 City of Renton CONTACT INFORMATION Erika Conkling, A1CP, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Phone: (425) 430-6578 Stephanie Kramer Assistant State Archaeologist Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 1063 Capitol Way South Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Phone: (360) 586-3083 King County Sheriffs Office Headquarters 516 Third Avenue, Room W-150 Seattle, WA 98104-2312 Phone: (206) 296-4155 (non -emergency) Laura Murphy Muckleshoot Tribe Cultural Resources 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Phone: (253) 876-3272 Appendix C Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 2 ICF 00593.10 Appendix H Transportation Analysis—Preferred Alternative HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1- NE Sunset Blvd.1NE Park & NE Sunset Blvd. 2110/2011 Lane Configurations t'+ I t? I r Volume (vph) 1544 87 174 1033 60 231 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util, Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prat) 3506 1770 3539 1770 9583 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd_ Flow (perm) 3506 1770 3539 1770 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0.99 1560 5 1660 0.83 105 0 0 0.81 215 0 215 0.95 1087 0 1087 0.78 77 0 77 0.85 272 239 33 Turn Type Progression Factor 0.37 Prot 0.06 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 Prot Protected Phases 2 Delay (s) 1 6 4 4 Permitted Phases C A C C Approach Delay (s) 8.3 4.2 32.3 Actuated Green, G (s) 44.3 14.0 62.3 8.7 8.7 Effective Green, g (s) 46.3 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 15.0 64.3 9.7 9.7 Actuated g/C Ra6o 0.58 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 0.19 0.80 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 15 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2029 332 2844 215 192 vis Ratio Prot c0.47 c0.12 0.31 c0.04 0.02 vis Ratio Perm vic Ratio 0.82 0.65 0.38 0.36 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 13.5 30.1 2.2 32.3 31.5 Progression Factor 0.37 0.65 0.06 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.3 3.8 0.3 1.0 0.4 Delay (s) 8.3 23.3 0.5 33.3 32.0 Level of Service A C A C C Approach Delay (s) 8.3 4.2 32.3 Approach LOS A A C _ k 7�ki, i ✓R,.S* . i. h i l 'k ; 3 h,• -e �y �+ HCM Average Control Delay 9.2 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80,0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Preferred Alternative PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE Sunset Blvd & Edmonds AV NE 2/1012011 k Lane Configurations 367 0 142 1 +1� 262 I 1 v!s Ratio Prot 0.10 T 0.03 Volume (vph) 145 1410 95 45 950 8 56 27 31 6 44 124 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 0.8 3.0 3.0 1.2 3.0 3.0 0.2 3.0 3.0 25.6 Lane LIM. Factor 1.00 0.95 57.3 1.00 0.95 31.4 1.00 1.00 A 1.00 1.00 E Frt 1.00 0.99 Approach Delay (s) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 41.4 1.00 0.90 Approach LOS Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 A 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prat) 1770 3495 1770 3532 1770 1678 1770 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.65 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3495 1770 3532 596 1678 1217 1615 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.95 0.71 0.86 0.89 0.58 0.84 0.52 0.72 0.63 0.66 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 171 1484 134 52 1067 14 67 52 43 10 67 148 RTDR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 36 0 0 125 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 171 1613 0 52 1080 0 67 59 0 10 90 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.6 50.1 5.4 39.9 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 Effective Green, g (s) 16.6 52.1 6.4 41.9 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.65 0.08 0.52 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 367 2276 142 1850 93 262 190 252 v!s Ratio Prot 0.10 00.46 0.03 06.31 9.0 0.03 71.9% 0.06 vls Ratio Perm Analysis Period (min) 15 00.11 0.01 vic Ratio 0.47 0.71 0.37 0.58 0.72 0.22 0.05 0.36 Uniform Delay, d1 27.8 9.0 34.9 13.1 32.1 29.5 28.7 30.2 Progression Factor 0.89 0.70 1.08 0.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 1.2 2.0 1.2 25.3 0.6 0.2 1.2 Delay (s) 25.6 7.5 39.8 6.9 57.3 30.1 28.9 31.4 Level of Service C A D A E C C C Approach Delay (s) 9.2 8.4 41.4 31.2 Approach LOS A A D C c Critical Lane Group Preferred Alternative PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 2 HCM Average Control Delay 12.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Preferred Alternative PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3NE Sunset Blvd & Harrington AV NE 2110201 c Critical Lane Group Preferred Alternative PM (2015) Synchm7 Report Lane Configurations 4+ Volume (vph) 25 1851 51 85 1102 4 43 10 78 2 3 3 Ideal Flow (vphp|) 1900 1800 1800 1800 1800 1900 1900 1900 1800 1900 1800 1900 Total Lost time (d 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane U0.Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.95 F|tPnotected 0.85 1.80 0.95 1.00 0.80 0.98 Sotd.Flow /pmU 1770 3515 1770 3534 1687 1748 F|tPermittod 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3515 1770 3534 1559 1675 Peak -hour factor, PHF 076 0.00 0.72 0.80 0.02 0.38 0.80 0.50 0.75 0.67 0.57 0.59 Adj. Flow (vmh) 33 1501 71 88 1188 11 48 20 106 3 5 5 RTORReduction /vph\ 0 3 0 O 1 V 0 87 V 0 4 O Lane Group F| Turn Type Prot Pmt Ponn Pomn Protected Phases 1 0 5 3 4 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G(o) 2.4 49.6 7.2 54.4 10.3 10.3 Effective Green, g(o) 3.4 51.8 8.3 56.4 11.2 11.2 Actuated nkCRatio 0.04 0.86 0.10 0.70 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension Lane Grp Cap (vph) 75 2267 181 2491 218 235 v/nRmUnProt 0.03 n0.45 oO.08 xO.34 v/sRatio Perm o0D8 0.01 v/oRoUo 0.44 0.89 0.55 0.48 0.40 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 37.4 9.1 34.1 6.3 31.3 29.7 Progression Factor 071 0.27 0.65 0.68 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.3 1.4 13 0.5 1,6 01 Delay (s) 30.7 3.8 35.5 4.1 83.9 29.8 Level ofService C A C A C C Approach Delay (s) 4.4 5.7 32.9 29.8 Approach LOS A A C C 2. HCMAverage Control Delay 6.6 HCMLevel ofService A HCK8Volume h)Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum oflost time (u) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.396 ICU Level nfService C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Preferred Alternative PM (2015) Synchm7 Report HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: NE 10th St & NE Sunset Blvd 2110/2011 Lane Configurations 4� 1 0 1 tT Volume (vph) 23 60 55 133 41 39 45 1165 161 82 1034 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3A 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prat) 1752 1757 1770 3461 1770 3535 Flt Permitted 0.90 0.67 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1600 1219 1770 3461 1770 3535 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.65 0.92 0.96 0.67 0.77 0.63 0.68 0.96 0.77 0.83 0.94 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 35 65 57 199 53 62 66 1214 209 99 1100 9 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 26 0 0 11 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 131 0 0 303 0 66 1407 0 99 1109 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.4 22.4 4.8 37.4 7.2 39.8 Effective Green, g (s) 23.4 23.4 5.8 39.4 8.2 41.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.49 0.10 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4,0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 468 357 128 1705 181 1847 v1s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0,41 0.06 c0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 cO.25 vlc Ratio 0.28 0.85 0.52 0.83 0.55 0.60 Uniform Delay, dl 21.8 26.6 35.7 17.4 34.1 13.3 Progression Factor 0.98 1.00 0.60 0.34 1.39 0.47 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 18.3 3.5 3.6 3.6 1.2 Delay (s) 22.1 45.0 25.0 9.6 51.0 7.5 Level of Service C D C A D A Approach Delay (s) 22.1 45.0 10.3 11.1 Approach LOS C D B B HCM Average Control Delay 14.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Preferred Alternative PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 4 HCM Urs' Dalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: NE Sunset Blvd & Kirkland Ave NE 2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative RN(2O15) Synohm7 Report Lane Configurations Volumnkeh/h\ 88 1102 7 O 893 4 0 0 33 O O 88 Sign Control Free Free Stop G1np Grade O% O% O% O% Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.90 0.50 0.50 8.80 025 0J5 825 0.33 0.80 025 0.03 Hourly flow rate (vph) 88 1291 14 O 891 18 0 0 100 O 0 141 Pedestrians Lane Width 0d Walking Speed (01s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (vnh) Median type None None Median storage voh) Upstream signal 00 1086 344 pX,platoon unblocked 0.77 0.72 0.84 0.84 0.72 0.84 0.84 0.77 vC.conflicting volume 1807 1305 3107 2477 853 1917 2478 504 vC1.stage 1ounfVol vC3.stage 3oomfvol vCu.unblocked vol 420 658 710 1152 8 482 1151 O tC. single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6,5 8.9 7.6 6.5 6.9 tC.2stage (s) tF(s) 2.2 22 3`5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0quoue free % 90 100 100 100 87 100 100 83 cNcapacity keh/h\ 877 871 208 148 784 815 148 838 Volume Total 86 801 444 661 346 100 141 Volume Left 86 0 0 U 0 O O Volume Right 0 O 14 O 18 100 141 c8H 877 1700 1700 1700 1700 784 838 Volume hoCapacity 0.10 0.51 026 039 0.30 0.13 0.17 Queue Length 05th(M) 8 O O D O 11 15 Control Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 O.0 0.0 O.O 10.3 10.2 Lane LOS A B 8 Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 10.3 10.2 Approach LOS B 8 Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.3% ICU Level nfService A Analysis Period (min) 15 Preferred Alternative RN(2O15) Synohm7 Report HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: NE 12th St & NE Sunset Blvd 2/10/2011 HCM Average Control Delay 24.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Lane Configurations 1 0 "+ Volume (vph) 193 167 12 92 88 51 34 1042 119 91 792 149 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prat) 3318 3222 1770 3480 1770 3447 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3318 3222 1770 3480 1770 3447 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.82 0.63 0.77 0.84 0.63 -0.78 0.94 0.86 0.76 0.91 0.82 Adj. Flow (vph) 210 204 19 119 105 81 44 1109 138 120 870 182 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 49 0 0 11 0 0 19 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 429 0 0 256 0 44 12.3_6_ 0 120 1033 0 Tum Type Split Split Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 15.3 11.4 4.3 28.7 7.6 32.0 Effective Green, g (s) 16.3 12.4 5.3 30.7 8.6 34.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.16 0.07 0.38 0.11 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 676 499 117 1335 _ _ 190 1465 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.08 0.02 c0.36 0.07 c0.30 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.63 0.51 0.38 0.93 0.63 0.71 Uniform Delay, d1 29.1 31.0 35.8 23.6 34.2 18.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.20 0.42 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 1.2 1.9 9.3 7.5 2.9 Delay (s) 31.3 32.2 44.8 19.1 41.7 21.8 Level of Service C C D B D C Approach Delay (s) 31.3 32.2 20.0 23.8 Approach LOS C C B C HCM Average Control Delay 24.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Preferred Alternative PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: NE Sunset Blvd & Monroe Ave NE 2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 7 _ ., 1'�f: `'r4tlP fx§A�•IFi. .5". +�,��1 dT'-'.._ .kh't Lane Configurations ft +4 1 Volume (vehlh) 1272 14 4 1032 0 18 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.50 0.25 0.90 0.90 0.63 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1413 28 16 1147 0 29 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1166 pX, platoon unblocked 0.72 0.72 0.72 vC, conflicting volume 1441 2033 721 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 822 1648 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 100 96 cM capacity (vehlh) 575 63 776 Volume Total 942 499 16 573 573 29 Volume Left 0 0 16 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 28 0 0 0 29 cSH 1700 1700 575 1700 1700 388 Volume to Capacity 0.55 0.29 0.03 0.34 0.34 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 0 0 6 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 15.0 Lane LOS B C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 15.0 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Preferred Alternative PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: NE 12th St & Edmonds AV NE /I2110/2011 Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 4 46 6 45 55 248 14 159 58 387 123 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 56 7 48 59 267 15 169 62 425 135 9 Volume Total (vph) 68 374 184 62 569 Volume Left (vph) 5 48 15 0 425 Volume Right (vph) 7 267 0 62 9 Hadj (s) -0.05 -0.40 0.04 -0.70 0.14 Departure Headway (s) 7.4 6.1 7.1 6.3 6.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.14 0.64 0.36 0.11 0.97 Capacity (vehlh) 449 572 491 545 575 Control Delay (s) 11.6 19.2 12.8 8.9 54.2 Approach Delay (s) 11.6 19.2 11.8 54.2 Approach LOS B C B F Delay 33.2 HCM Level of Service D Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.8% ICU Level of Service ❑ Analysis Period (min) 15 Preferred Alternative PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: NE 12th St & Harrington AV NE 21110011 Lane Configurations 4+ 4 4 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 36 318 11 18 308 72 18 18 14 50 ' 18 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.74 0.38 0.63 0.80 1.00 0.63 0.42 0.33 0-39 0.42 0.25 Hourly flow rate (vph) 57 430 29 29 385 72 29 43 42 128 43 16 1,0 JJ Volume Total (vph) 516 486 114 187 Volume Left (vph) 57 29 29 128 Volume Right (vph) 29 72 42 16 Hadj (s) 0.02 -0.04 -0.14 0.12 Departure Headway (s) 6.0 6.0 7.3 7.3 Degree Utilization, x 0.86 0.81 0.23 0.38 Capacity (veh/h) 588 582 432 451 Control Delay (s) 34.6 29.1 12.5 14.6 Approach Delay (s) 34.6 29.1 12.5 14,6 Approach LOS D D B B Delay 27.8 HCM Level of Service D Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Preferred Alternative PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: NE 12th St & Kirkland Ave NEII 2/10/2011 t t Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 18 326 10 7 240 36 21 46 4 72 36 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.42 0.87 0.33 0.50 0.87 0.50 0.58 0.65 4.25 0.71 0.42 0.50 Hourly flow rate (vph) 43 375 30 14 276 72 36 71 16 101 86 28 Volume Total (vph) 230 218 152 210 123 215 Volume Left (vph) 43 0 14 0 36 101 Volume Right (vph) 0 30 0 72 16 28 Hadj (s) 0.13 -0.06 0.08 -0.21 0.01 0.05 Departure Headway (s) 6.3 6.1 6.4 6.1 6.4 6.2 Degree Utilization, x 0.40 0.37 0.27 0.35 0.22 0.37 Capacity (vehlh) 545 564 534 561 496 536 Control Delay (s) 12.3 11.4 10.5 112 11.2 12.8 Approach Delay (s) 11.9 10.9 11.2 12.8 Approach LOS B B B B LOOM Delay 11.7 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Preferred Alternative PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE Sunset Blvd./NE Park & NE Sunset Blvd. 211012011 c Critical Lane Group Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 1 Lane Configurations 0 tt Volume (vph) 1695 96 191 1135 65 254 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3506 1770 3539 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3506 1770 3539 1770 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.83 0.81 0.95 0.78 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 1712 116 236 1195 83 299 RTOR Reduction (vph) 5 0 0 0 0 262 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1823 0 236 1195 83 37 Turn Type Prot Prot Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 44.0 14.0 62.0 9.0 9.0 Effective Green, g (s) 46.0 15.0 64.0 10.0 10.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.58 0.19 0.80 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2016 332 2831 221 198 v/s Ratio Prot c0.52 c0.13 0.34 c0.05 0.02 vfs Ratio Perm vlc Ratio 0.90 0.71 0.42 0.38 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 15.1 30.5 2.4 32.1 31.4 Progression Factor 0.41 0.64 0.06 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.5 5.8 0.4 1.1 0.5 Delay (s) 12.7 25.2 0.5 33.2 31.8 Level of Service B C A C C Approach Delay (s) 12.7 4.6 32.1 Approach LOS B A C HCM Average Control Delay 11.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE Sunset Blvd & Edmonds AV NE 2/10/2011 c Critical Lane Group Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 2 Lane Configurations'�i Volume (vph) 160 1549 105 50 1043 9 62 30 34 7 48 136 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane UN. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.90 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3495 1770 3532 1770 1680 1770 1614 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.63 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3495 1770 3532 562 1680 1180 1614 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.95 0.71 0.86 0.89 0.58 0.84 0.52 0.72 0.63 0.66 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 188 1631 148 58 1172 16 74 58 47 11 73 162 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 39 0 0 130 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 188 1774 0 58 1187 0 74 66 0 11 105 0 Tum Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.5 48.7 5.6 38.8 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 Effective Green, g (s) 16.5 50.7 6.6 40.8 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.63 0.08 0.51 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 365 2215 146 1801 96 288 202 276 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 00.51 0.03 c0.34 0.04 0.06 vls Ratio Perm 00.13 0.01 vlc Ratio 0.52 0.80 0.40 0.66 0.77 0.23 0.05 0.38 Uniform Delay, d1 28.2 10.9 34.8 14.5 31.7 28.6 27.7 29.4 Progression Factor 0.89 0.74 1.04 0.48 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 1.6 2.1 1.7 32.5 0.6 0.2 1.2 Delay (s) 25.9 9.7 38.1 8.7 64.2 29.2 27.9 30.6 Level of Service G A D A E C C C Approach Delay (s) 11.2 10.0 43.6 30.5 Approach LOS B B D C HCM Average Control Delay 13.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of last time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE Sunset Blvd & Harrington AV NE 211012011 � � i Lane Configurations HCM Average Control Delay HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Volume (vph) 27 1483 56 93 1209 4 47 10 86 2 4 5 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00. 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3515 1770 3535 1685 1737 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3515 1770 3535 1554 1681 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.75 0.90 0.72 0.86 0.92 0.38 0.90 0.50 0.75 0.67 0.57 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 36 1648 78 108 1314 11 52 20 115 3 7 8 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 36 1723 0 108 1325 0 0 97 0 0 11 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.6 49.9 6.4 52.7 10.7 10.7 Effective Green, g (s) 4.6 51.9 7.4 54.7 11.7 11.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.65 0.09 0.68 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension [s] 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v!s Ratio Perm v!c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS 102 2280 164 2417 0.02 c0.49 c0.06 0.37 0.35 0.76 36.3 9.7 0.65 0.43 1.9 1.6 25.5 5.8 C A 6.2 A 0.66 0.55 35.1 6.4 0.66 0.74 7.4 0.6 30.4 5.4 C A 7.3 A 227 c0.06 0.43 31.1 1.00 1.8 32.9 C 32.9 C 246 0.01 0.05 29.4 1.00 0.1 29.5 C 29.5 C c Critical Lane Group Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 3 HCM Average Control Delay 8.2 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: NE 10th St & NE Sunset Blvd 2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 4 Lane Configurations 4o Volume (vph) 25 67 58 146 45 43 50 1280 177 91 1136 9 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1755 1757 1770 3461 1770 3535 Fit Permitted 0.90 0.66 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1592 1197 1770 3461 1770 3535 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.65 0.92 0.96 0.67 0.77 0.63 0.68 0.96 0.77 0.83 0.94 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 38 73 60 218 58 fib 74 1333 230 110 1209 10 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 24 0 0 11 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 147 0 0 333 _ 0 74 1546 0 110 1219 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.4 23.4 4.8 36.4 7.2 38.8 Effective Green, g (s) 24.4 24.4 5.8 38.4 8.2 40.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.07 0.48 0.10 0.51 Clearance Time (s) 4,0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 486 365 128 1661 181 1803 vls Ratio Prot 0.04 c0,45 0.06 c0.34 vls Ratio Perm 0.09 c0.28 vlc Ratio 0.30 0.91 0.58 0.93 0.61 0.68 Uniform Delay, d1 21.3 26.8 35.9 19.6 34.4 14.7 Progression Factor 0.98 1.00 0.60 0.37 1.28 0.82 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 27.5 5.2 8.0 5.3 1.7 Delay (s) 21.7 54.2 26.9 15.2 49.4 13.6 Level of Service C D C B D B Approach Delay (s) 21.7 54.2 15.7 16.6 Approach LOS C D B B HCM Average Control Delay 20.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: NE Sunset Blvd & Kirkland Ave NE 211012011 II Lane Configurations Volume (vehlh) 75 1276 8 0 981 4 0 0 36 0 0 98 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.90 0.50 0.50 0.90 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.33 0.90 0.25 0.63 Hourly flow rate (vph) 95 1418 16 0 1090 16 0 0 109 0 0 156 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1086 344 pX, platoon unblocked 0.73 0.65 0.79 0.79 0.65 0.79 0.79 0.73 vC, conflicting volume 1106 1434 2316 2722 717 2106 2722 553 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 399 595 578 1093 0 311 1093 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 89 100 100 100 85 100 100 80 cM capacity (vehlh) 842 636 230 149 706 376 149 790 ..RM0 Mtl% A'v�.: H "e�w�"-.,�� 7: 4 } :.a f.'. ,ti Volume Total 95 945 489 727 379 109 156 Volume Left 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 16 0 16 109 156 cSH 842 1700 1700 1700 1700 706 790 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.56 0.29 0.43 0.22 0.15 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 0 0 0 0 14 18 Control Delay (s) 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 10.7 Lane LOS A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 11.0 10.7 Approach LOS B B Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: NE 12th St & NE Sunset Blvd 2/10/2011 t Lane Configurations 4T+ 41� Mi ti Volume (vph) 212 183 14 101 97 56 37 1144 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 3317 3222 1770 3480 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3317 3222 1770 3480 131 1900 12 100 1900 12 3.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.95 1770 870 1900 12 3.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3447 1.00 3447 164 1900 12 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.82 0.63 0.77 0.84 0.63 0.78 0.94 0.86 0.76 0.91 0.82 Adj. Flow (vph) 230 223 22 131 115 89 47 1217 152 132 956 200 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 49 0 0 11 0 0 19 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 470 0 0 286 0 47 1358 0 132 1137 0 Tum Type Split _ Split Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 15.8 12.1 4.0 27.5 7.6 31.1 Effective Green, g (s) 16.8 13.1 5.0 29.5 8.6 33.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.16 0.06 0.37 0.11 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.04.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 697 528 111 1283 T --- 190 1426 v1s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.09 0.03 c0.39 0.07 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm vlc Ratio 0.67 0.54 0.42 1.06 0.69 0.80 Uniform Delay, d1 29.1 30.7 36.1 25.2 34.4 20.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.18 0.46 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.8 1.4 2.1 37.0 11.3 4.7 Delay (s) 31.9 32.1 44.6 48.7 45.7 25.2 Level of Service C C D D D C Approach Delay (s) 31.9 32.1 48.5 27.3 Approach LDS C C D C i c E HCM Average Control Delay 36.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 intersection Capacity Utilization 73.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: NE Sunset Blvd & Monroe Ave NE 2110/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 7 .1 Lane Configurations tT* Volume (vehlh) 1396 16 4 1134 0 20 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.50 0.25 0.90 0.90 0.63 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1551 32 16 1260 0 32 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1166 pX, platoon unblocked 0.69 0.69 0.69 vC, conflicting volume 1583 2229 792 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 936 1877 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pQ queue free % 97 100 96 cM capacity (vehlh) 499 42 744 Volume Total 1034 549 16 630 630 32 Volume Left 0 0 16 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 32 0 0 0 32 cSH 1700 1700 499 1700 1700 372 Volume to Capacity 0.61 0.32 0.03 0.37 0.37 0.09 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 0 0 7 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 12.4 0.0 0.0 15.6 Lane LOS B C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 15.6 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: NE 12th St & Edmonds AV NE 2!1012011 Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 8 Lame Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 4 51 7 50 60 272 16 174 64 425 135 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 62 9 54 65 292 17 185 68 467 148 10 Volume Total (vph) 76 411 202 68 625 Volume Left (vph) 5 54 17 0 467 Volume Right (vph) 9 292 0 68 10 Hadj (s) -0.05 -0.40 0.04 -0.70 0.14 Departure Headway (s) 7.6 6.2 7.2 6.5 6.4 Degree Utilization, x 0.16 0.71 0.41 0.12 1.11 Capacity (vehlh) 423 564 467 525 556 Control Delay (s) 12.0 23.1 13.9 9.2 96.3 Approach Delay (s) 12.0 23.1 12.7 96.3 Approach LOS B C B F it Delay 53.6 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 8 HCM I-Insignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: NE 12th St & Harrington AV NE 2110/2011 --* --I,. ')� or *-- 'I- 1\ Lane Configurations 4* +4 44 + Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 39 350 12 20 338 79 20 20 16 55 20 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.74 0.38 0.63 0.80 1.00 OM 0.42 0.33 0.39 0.42 0.25 Hourly flow rate (vph) 62 473 32 32 422 79 32 48 48 141 48 16 Volume Total (vph) 566 533 128 205 Volume Left (vph) 62 32 32 141 Volume Right (vph) 32 79 48 16 Hadj (s) 0.02 -0.04 -0.14 0.12 Departure Headway (s) 6.4 6.4 7.9 7.7 Degree Utilization, x 1.01 0.94 0.28 0.44 Capacity (veh/h) 547 554 433 445 Control Delay (s) 67.1 49.7 13.9 16.7 Approach Delay (s) 67.1 49.7 13.9 16.7 Approach LOS F E B C Delay 48.6 HCM Level of Service E Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: NE 12th St & Kirkland Ave NE 2/10/2011 -I 4e 4--- t Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 10 Lane Configurations", Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 20 357 12 8 263 39 23 51 4 79 39 16 Peak Hour Factor 0.42 0.87 0.33 0.50 0.87 0.50 0.58 0.65 0.25 0.71 0.42 0.50 Hourly flow rate (vph) 48 410 36 16 302 78 40 78 16 111 93 32 Volume Total (vph) 253 242 167 229 134 236 Volume Leff (vph) 48 0 16 0 40 111 Volume Right (vph) 0 36 0 78 16 32 Hadj (s) 0.13 -0.07 0.08 -0.20 0.02 0.05 Departure Headway (s) 6.6 6.4 6.7 6.4 6.8 6.5 Degree Utilization, x 0.46 0.43 0.31 0.41 0.25 0.43 Capacity (vehlh) 525 544 512 537 471 514 Control Delay (s) 13.9 12.8 11.4 12.5 12.0 14.2 Approach Delay (s) 13.4 12.0 12.0 14.2 Approach LOS B B B B Delay 13.0 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 10 V L w a� m m m m m [o m m m m m F F F F F F F- F- F F- F- m m m m m m m m m m m F F F F F F F-- F- F F- F- C N N N CU U � N CU C CU a -D 'D _0 -a -0 a 'D v •o U V U U L3 U L7 U U f� U C C C C C C C C C C G 0 0 0 o a o o a o 0 o Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z mFm- Fm- in Fm- CO m m F - �I xI VIII' 1 Ixlxl 1x1 1 1 IMI C? U C] L] U U U U U U U C C C C C C C C C C C � w C' Cr oc cr 0� of Of 0 J v a G N U ro ro� 0 3 a C- m o s •y c� m m m o o o a m (D Q o A a- E �• 5 m o 2 0 o w 0 0 c c= o > ° m > ❑ cc c O CD 0 U e Tu E v o 0 o a m . G C U C C. •C o CO I 0 U U o m E E m .�' � w z C_ d U} w Q_ Q_ m m m m C_ m M w w U U U U U U U U C C C C C C C C r' y N CO CO r CO M ('7 [h I C4 N E x a� -p 76 -O a -0 'a -0 70 00 C w o 0 0 0 .a -a -o �a 'a v 'D -o a� y ani C C C C C C C C 0 ca Q ,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z �I xI VIII' 1 Ixlxl 1x1 1 1 IMI C? U C] L] U U U U U U U C C C C C C C C C C C � w C' Cr oc cr 0� of Of 0 J v a G N U ro ro� 0 3 a C- m o s •y c� m m m o o o a m (D Q o A a- E �• 5 m o 2 0 o w 0 0 c c= o > ° m > ❑ cc c O CD 0 U e Tu E v o 0 o a m . G C U C C. •C o CO I 0 U U o m E E m .�' � w z C_ d U} w Q_ Q_ m m m m C_ m M w w U U U U U U U U C C C C C C C C r' y N CO CO r CO M ('7 [h I C4 N E a� �? Wi c a� y ani 7, a:d v5 i r 0 ca Q ,. Jj� 0 o o c o 0 o c N L 0 U o o 3 2 t} 3 C }r Q.1 5 d o o > o q c > > `a 4i o ° t w CC C� CO U) m w J 3 w w w w w w w w LU H F- I❑— H F- H H m 1❑— H H H � F- F- F- Fm-- F- �:1I� -a -v V a V -0 -a (1) as as as ai (1) (1) as m V -o -o -o a -o -0 -0 -a :3 c > > > c :3 :3 :3 v 5 Z C c C = C C C C C -40 o o o o o o o 0 z z z z z z z z z 0 (4 C C C C C C C C C N "') Lo Ln N N U) N N I M CO CO C� ❑ m m m m m m�❑ m p] 3 F- --u_0_0_0_0a_0'o N LU to F- Fw E Uj C o '0'D-D'D-D'a m m m j as as -u _0 _0 _0 _0 -0 _0 'o m o ai ai a) o as m a o a o _O o -o -U 'D v -a 7+ cn 0 Ll m x O C1r � F U CCa a Q m N U � i L3) to C ? U C� rs I U? T Ir co s Lb Z Z Za 6 5 Z Z ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a ¢ a a c CO CO C� ❑ m m m m m m�❑ m p] F- --u_0_0_0_0a_0'o F- '0'D-D'D-D'a m m m m as as -u _0 _0 _0 _0 -0 _0 'o m o ai ai a) o as m a o a o a a -o -U 'D v -a -a M M :3 c 0 Z Z Za 6 5 Z Z c c c c c c c c c c c c c c O 4 O b D O O 0 D O Q O O z z z z z z z z ;z z z z z z °;`..; -0 � -0 at "O ar -o 41 'O a) a � d Q a Z1 17 C7 aT a) a7 Q7 a) m as m V U U U U U U U U U U U U U c C = C C C C C`y, ;: C C C C C C f. kal? N r r N N r N M V ; '3 N L r LO CC) LO ` "59 y+ ; 9 a) . U oc 0 U) U 0 U ] ? .' D C 'N C ' ft Q) U) U1 E C LA .Y ca m L) .� .` o) a w E o 'in m ro e " n 0 ca ca c c as ❑ W ua Lo ' Q m ' B E V) p 0ffi w o WW a U U a5 O as � . c w '� > c N > tf U Orn m CJ W w d LL a- W a5 d� O U p z J M W ca WQ� m az w c w a r N M q Cn CO E E S E 2 2 F- e e R e F- R R R F- 0 k k k k k k k k k k k k LO m m LO m| q1 2 2 2 2 2 \/ LO m m LO m| q1 a n # U? o a a. EL EL a a \/ ¢ e � 2 � �g k E � CL c Li— (D (D J (D § $ x 2 m Co k ƒ f m § m / J -A I I a n # U? o a a. EL EL a a CS U C E It 4) IL w 0 UJ a¢ z WW i W` � F 0 xx 1XI I IXFXFI I I ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ r� ❑ ❑ ❑ o o '.v o 0 r. ❑ o ❑ o ❑ ❑ © o m m m m m m m m m m m m CO m m F F F F F F F F F F F F- F F F F- F F F F F F- J x x X x x r �q m m .... m m m r m m m rM W r m m r`. m r�y� W r m m .r m m _ m m coW m F F F F F- F F- F-• F g a a) ro a) a a) a a) a a) ro 4) a a) a a) a a) a a) -0 N a a) s fU -o a) 'a (1) a a) a a) •a N ro d) a a a -; N 43 N ro a ro a a 'o 'a a a a a a a a -o a a a ro a a a U U U 6 U U U U U V U 7.7 U U U U U O O O O O O O O O O O �s O O O O O O Q O O O O Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ? Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z '; Z Z Z -:' x X IFA,. X X ?C im • x x x k; a N a 0 a a) a 4) ro a) a 0 a a) ro 4) a N a a) a a) a t` .1 a) a N a 0 a a) a N a @ a N ro (1) a a v a) a) a) a a a 70 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a ! ro a s U U :t j k f ;•i°t 6 u ff u Q LT Q 6 U 6 a' +�, �:� (N M M r co M co [+) r ., _.j N Li) f.() d' LL' Of Of Of 4' Q' Q.' w QL y r fir" C ca v'1 '5LU Iwo U CD co 17 q a� Q o a 0 a a) fna) ami a� o a; @ C i C Q F C 4) i m 3 m CL Q �' a U o •� E in d o w J J C1 z a d U) w s w u) in T w; CD m u] 3 1 � � ' 3:Cis ° of El_ C W LU w 4'. d 4 4 0.. [1. IL n. a a 11� W :� W W w W W W W W Q.:a Q Q Q X X X X X X X X r A> X X X X X X N X !4 X X X m m m m m m m m MOO m m m m m F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F- CO m m in CO m m m CO m m m m m m (n m 07 m m F F" F F F F�< F F F F F F F F F F F F- { X M a a a a a a a a a -a a -a -o -a a za a a a a a o xs a N N N U N Q) Q7 Q) Ql a7 N U7 N Q) , ::4 Qy Q7 0 0 Q7 CD 0 N 0 N 0 a -o a a a u a a U U U U V U L] U U U t3 U U U 0 o O d 4 O d O 4 O Q O D O O 4 O O 4 0 o O O O O z z z z z z z z z z z z z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z z z 7C ?� X X N' a s a -o "a a 'o a a v a a a b v a _0 a s -o a -o -v -a 0 m (D m 4) 0 U U U U U+ U U U U U -;j C E C C C C C C C � �� C C C C C C C C C G G SIJ N N 0 N N O n N r r N N r N M qT ' �� N L r to Ln iA M N CO Ch LD M R W� N. o y Vi O a O J l -C3 N gy�� U)iZ N F t� G rn 4ID D y �+ C N V U C r'.!i -"� Q3 Q) N C Y U k..: O C CT] E Q) 7 C a U to m ¢� rn d sn E o N �' �' C AS ca N W Q' ¢ is m m $s a m E C O .y E o Qa c X m Q 0 s E u W? w a w CD Q3 � > Cc L N m w .E tau Z ,r.;.;.dd o d d' LL E Q j, U E 3 o .1 V. E d Q) u q, C N +. .G:! ca � N N 7 j .co C m 7 a V Of ay Q) `m:+. �. 43 la Q7 U [0 H U ' j4 3 C O CT CO O (Q Ctl Q) N C ^ ; O Q) f4 O C'i F IL m (n U Ci w Cn LL W d U J d w� d' W J-1 w U `i v r Er CO 1l� 00 ( £ N Ch -r ul CO 1 j m N CO r N [+7 Ln • ua ua w w w w ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ rt . F F F- F- a¢< a a a Ca U U U U U U U U a. d CL a EL a �L d E t Q V► N w > OQ rw IyoZ W �w �J 0 Q FIXI I 1XIX X x X carom %Mmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmFm xXXx x r k1 m m m oo m m m m m ;— m as m m m m m m EB m as li r r r r r r r F- r r r r r r r H- r E-- r }- x a) v a ax a a a� a ay Q as a a� a m a ay a a a a) a) a 7 a 0 a O a 7 a 7 7 a O a 3 a 7 a 3 a 7 a 7 ro 7 a 7 a 7 a 3 a 7 O a D a o a 7 ' 0 U u u u u u u u u u u C C C u C C C C C G C C O Z O Z O Z 5 Z O Z O Z O Z ¢ Z O Z O Z O Z ='. O ;;''}�,^ �i Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O z O z O Z O 6 D Z Z Z x x x )C x X x X a a a a� ds m a 'o a a a 'o a i3 a a a d) m d) d7 N m a) m a5 (D d) m a "O -a a -o -D -o (7 a) 6Y d7 6} m d3 O V C — C — C — C — G — C — C — C — C — C — C- — C ;a C C C C C C C C C C SFS .'z Q' N o' d} t?' N O' d) Q' d) O' d5 or N o' 47 or d) O- d) cr N `" N M M M M M M r N - N (fl 47 M� t to y Z3 ad ID C COcu N C �' 0 O d N C O 1 V ' O N a�j ¢ 'E�siyyyVi 6 O C j C C CD7 d) N ❑ C S6 c (6 7 -�� f O U p C) C a O N 0 C:.'�Y O U CO N .-. (L .V) C .� CO C m U O @ O @ N M 7 a� (0 � � C .Q' a 3 m � a� 0 a � In 3 ar a .. m .oc m ZI . o p a c 0 s k o:3Jo w J Z d J d U) W w w0� U) U? 3: w J ad' U) = U Yom, N M I ui t0 ti as 91 O r N M � in (D N M €i a d d a a d w:A w w w w w w w w ¢¢¢ X x X X x X x X N x x ?( X x r x x x x x 1C m m m m m m LD ❑ m m m ; ,. m m m m in po CA W CO m m F- r h r r F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- ; F- r h h h 1, Fn m m m m m m m m m m FO Co a i + m m m m m m ; m m m FnM F- , a a a a -o -o M M a a a a -o -D ..1 1 I'D -a a -a a x x a a a a a -o 7 7 7 3 7 ";rrj 7 7 7 7 � 3 7 2 D D 7 7 D L) u C) i) i) L a u v Q U v is o v ` v v a 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o a o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 's v E..Ixlxlxlx';i i i I I I I I 0 Q) W Q) W O + a as a N a as -o 0 W 0 -o Lit -0 �,". 5 a a) -a a) a a7 a a7 a -b a -o X7 Y. a7 a) a) a7 a) a) a) -a -p -p -a -O -O : ; a -a a -CO3 -La a a 'b a -p a -D -a -p -O a -0 -a a U U U U U U U U i L? U C U C U C U C U C .3 U �; C U C U C U C U C >. s u7 N N M N N 4D N r N N N M v N u u•J ul [L! M Lf7 m M Ln c7 M A . Pl. 3 . `L•;i1 a ac >t C s � ..� c O U Q m 'C a) to Z Q� a) •� -0 v C-0 Q a) C C �.'i m to _ ca1, m O U � U C � a) a) C U i a5 � LO •� •L c L � ca L •' C S Fu a W O 'N py a1 (9 y O N ¢ U N C❑ W F- ¢ EL' m v0 IL r� ¢ a7 E c N U Q] p m �' 9 co m e a7 E as N o c Y p W d as x w > to m .. ;C;I SO N 7 C 9 U "�y lif! [d W U 7 Q. 7 S C al •� O 7 O- ru � O . a7 pd`' @ (6 0 m 0 aY C i'''1 d a) asO 3 � m F- fn U ('1 W [h LL W CL U 0. w � w` LU ` J dto'7� frC?6ch .y 1 1 LO 1 cD i�� fes . i N i 1 T IT 91 1iw w w w w w -Q Q ¢ +�, � � � � � � F- F- F- F- F -Q¢¢¢ Q¢# ;zU U U U U U U U �: 2 X 2 2 2 0. a a a a Complete Streets: Exception Criteria Background The Preferred Alternative will include full compliance with the City's complete streets ordinance with some modification in the portion of Sunset where topography prevents full implementation. At Edmonds Avenue NE and Harrington Avenue NE, the Preferred Alternative would keep the existing curb and 5 -foot -wide sidewalk (no planter) and right-of-way would be acquired from the north side (Sunset Terrace) up to 14 feet. East of 10th Street NE, there appears to be sufficient right-of-way width along NE Sunset Boulevard to accommodate the Complete Street cross section, though in some places parking improvements encroach into the existing right-of-way. See Final EIS Figure 2- 13 for Preferred Alternative cross sections. The City allows for exemptions from Complete Streets standards for pedestrian and bicycle facilities if certain criteria are met in RMC 4-6-060. This document provides the criteria and preliminary discussion of the preferred alternative cross section. A more complete analysis will be prepared at the time design -level plans are prepared. Criteria 4-6-060 STREET STANDARDS G. COMPLETE STREETS: 1. Complete Streets: The City of Renton will plan for, design, and construct transportation projects to appropriately provide accommodations for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities, and freight and motor vehicles, including the incorporation of such facilities into transportation plans and programs. 2. Exemptions: Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are not required to be established when it is concluded by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development and/or designee that application of complete streets principles is unnecessary or inappropriate: a. Where their establishment would be contrary to public safety; or b. When the cost would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use; or c. Where there is no identified long-term need; or d. Where the establishment would violate Comprehensive Plan policies; or e. Where the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development and/or designee grants a documented exemption which may only be authorized in specific situations where conditions warrant. Such site-specific exemptions shall not constitute general changes to the minimum street standards established in this Section. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement H'4-1 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Discussion Appendix H: Complete Streets Exception Criteria The reduction in nonmotorized elements of the NE Sunset Boulevard cross section on the south side of NE Sunset Boulevard between Edmonds Avenue NE and Harrington Avenue NE appears to meet criteria G.2.b and e, and potentially criteria a, due to: • topographic constraints and the presence of a retaining wall, • the anticipated cost of moving the retaining wall compared to the need or probable use, • the ability to provide full nonmotorized facilities on the north side of NE Sunset Boulevard and most improvements on the south side of the roadway. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement H.4 ICF 593.10 Appendix I Parks and Recreation Analysis—Preferred Alternative v v p n H p ca w m 41 p Q5 Q o0 n m N �t1 N �D is 00 W n M1 w �n N H H H i+ C a 05 N V1 �➢ H O N 0 n o a m m 0 n I n H H H N N N c �v J � a a c c c a i Q 4 0 0 0 o a q G a a a v 4 H N mCL a a 9 o + a T m a w a j - ' a° Y N p c a m m a o p M y 2 i Y L E C C C c u Q 4 d N T U'1 Op vJi N 7 A � a u O H O ul d N W M Qi la N a ❑ � H N V H � tp � •-� H r-� H a V1 a o o 0 o a a n a n a v ani '� n m oHo a pm a a o a T'^ 6 N14 vi 'i w c J H H H H N y u9 O Q Q Q i D c 0 a T A ¢ ¢ c .m -T -m a a m m a w a oO10 r`nv � w N QN i 4j H Q 4 d N T U'1 Op vJi N W m s n p is oo n n v O 0 0 r r V b➢ r„I m m m N H � a O a W c 0 a � a 9 0 o a a A ¢ ¢ u vS .m -T -m a m m a r 4 ry QN i 4j H Q 4 d N T U'1 Op •y �� m m •' N O, �n W Q M1 i• m � `m R R a` V A W m Q1 r 4 ry QN i 4j H Q 4 d N T U'1 Op •y �� m m N a` is oo n n v O 0 0 r r V b➢ r„I m m m N H � a O a W N SL_ } w N CI N n m �i a ry N m a r, M N N .i v N •ti N p 4 0. O N a Q a pp O •ti p � N H M a? c a• a 3 0 0 o a a o „ O h0 3 u m 'm_ 'm •: m m io 0 o o o v 0 a v m r a a n o c � N c1 m = t tP H N M N m H c a E g¢ d 6 a O M a c y v Y __ 'n ❑ L 10 m 2 N N V> n n O Y � O a _ O C `m a m a. 4 442 0 0 0 0 •' N O, �n W Q M1 i• m � `m R R a` r 4 ry QN i 4j H Q d N T U'1 Op •y �� m m N a` O 0 0 r r V b➢ r„I m m m N H � O a W SL_ } w N CI N n m �i a ry N m a r, M N N .i v N •ti N p 4 0. O N a Q a pp O •ti p � N H M a? c c r o „ O h0 o �+ N c L m E V o c N J M a c y DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY City , c ; AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �� ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: February 7, 2011 Project Name: Sunset Planned Action and Environmental Impact Statement Applicant: City of Renton and Renton Housing Authority (RHA) File Number. LUA 10- 052 Project Manager: Erika Conkling, AICD x6578 Project Summary: Adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance for development of the Sunset Area of the Renton Highlands. Project Location: The study area as a whole is generally bounded by NE 21St St on the north, Monroe Ave NE on the east, NE 7th St on the south, and Edmonds Ave NE on the west. Sunset Terrace is generally bounded by Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Ave NE on the north, NE 10th St on the east, NE Sunset Boulevard on the south, and Edmonds Ave NE on the west. lkv Omits '"y--^. w 'Nl415T�F *� -U;-r ShdTA— ' 6istrl[i . �� ,71E ]151 T- T i•E10EN ST'� r 'ti' itestle'roalxMh '= ORL" T4sde+hll South 5—d Med Use : tNE 1ETN .f}'� •. e E Patertid S—t '- z - rmaOeReddtloTment iV ..rte. � nEVTN�Er- t .3f--• - . luii>. N 'Fr SSTMST _ • LL 2 NE 13rN PL• ��` - A } �� 14TH iT i 1 NE eHTHsr i✓ IJE IFTH PL ; -.• S } ^ i` �< gSNA! 1F 4 ] f7gye.. r 5 '�i ��y; P '.�`��• .e f6r4 : S 7 �V a'i �E [ rNEyaa}nisiyF y:f�"q;� t1♦ o _ a=�C nr Uj.X f aat K•�mit!14TH STa NE • J 7 'NE 9TA"T 3 91HST =E'874 K 1 41 srie a Q s 4 r K.' t/C.1 3 W 7.r rtsT �� 1 R i - h`Pt'v.y 1,y i Jfl spa H i 4 AlA W 1hH5T'' Y ." �,i��.�� r'�.•�3•r +Y�'_:',��-_i � ^�� y��, ..� ..�iET7rnPL`. FRC Report- Preferred Alternative. doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report SUNSET AREA PLANNED ACTION AND EIS LUA 10-052 Report of February 7, 2011. Page 2 of 10 l PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND 11 The purpose of this report is to transmit the comments received on the Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement to the ERC and to discuss the environmentally preferred alternative that will be analyzed in the final document. Background For the last six months, the City and RHA have undertaken the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to support a Planned Action in the Sunset Area of the Renton Highlands neighborhood. This project was undertaken after adoption of the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy in which the public prioritized public investments for the revitalization of this area. Based on this information, four major actions are reviewed in the EIS: Potential redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing project • Improvements to Sunset Boulevard • Drainage Master Plan • Neighborhood investments, which include public investments in services and facilities (such as parks and recreation, library, or school improvements) as well as private investment decisions made by individual property owners. The proposed project includes four major actions, which in other circumstances could be reviewed separately, but because they are related by geography and through potential impacts, review has been combined into a single EIS. This EIS is being reviewed under both the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under RCW 43.21C.031 of SEPA the City has the authority to proceed with a Planned Action. A Planned Action streamlines environmental review by considering the impacts of proposals during an earlier stage in the planning process and it provides a more thorough environmental analysis than is typically conducted when projects are considered individually. It frontloads the environmental review process and once an ordinance is approved by Council, projects in the study area that are consistent with the types of development studied in the EIS are allowed to proceed without further environmental review. Concurrent NEPA review is also being conducted both because the Sunset Terrace site is owned by the federal department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and because RHA will be seeking federal funding to implement their redevelopment plans. In both cases NEPA review is required. Renton assumed authority as a Responsible Entity under NEPA, and Mayor Law designated the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to fulfill this role, which is a similar to the role of Responsible Authority under SEPA. Scoping for the EIS was conducted in the fall of 2010 and during that process three alternatives were identified for review and analysis. Those alternatives included a no -action alternative and two other development alternatives: • Alternative 1- No Action. RHA would develop affordable housing on two vacant properties, but it would not redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing property. Very limited public investment would be implemented, resulting in lesser redevelopment across the Planned Action study area. A Planned Action would not be designated. The No Action Alternative is required to be studied under NEPA and SEPA • Alternative 2. This alternative represents a moderate level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area based on investment in mixed -income housing and mixed uses in the Potential Sunset Terrace ERC Report- Preferred Alternative.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report SUNSET AREA PLANNED ACTION AND EIS LUA 10-052 Report of February 7, 2011. Rage 3 of 10 Redevelopment Subarea, targeted infrastructure and public services throughout the Planned Action study area, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. • Alternative 3. This alternative represents the highest level of growth in the Planned Action study area, based on investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with a greater number dwellings developed in a mixed -income, mixed-use style, major public investment in study area infrastructure and services, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. A Draft EIS (DEIS) was issued by the ERC on December 17, 2010 with a 45 day comment period. The comment period expired on January 31, 2011 and included a public hearing to obtain verbal comments on January 5, 2011. Residents of Sunset Terrace were also invited to participate in a public meeting on January 4, 2011 where they received information and provided input on the proposed alternatives. Comments Exhibit 1 and 2 to this report contain a copy of the comments received during the review period as well as a summary with brief responses to the comments. Comments were received regarding a variety of topics including: transit service, archaeological discoveries, noise and building design standards, job creation, property values, senior housing, impacts on schools, impacts on existing residents, affordable housing, Sunset Boulevard traffic improvements, community diversity, development incentives, environmental health, building scale and bulk, problems with high densities, parking requirements, lighting, shading impacts, children's safety, pedestrian safety, noise impacts, construction impacts, location of the library, neighborhood livability, crime, protection of salmon habitat in Johns Creek, linking mitigation and monitoring, maximizing sustainability and livability, recommended mitigation, sustainability measures, and monitoring outcomes. In addition to the comments on the DEIS, the City also received a communication from NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) regarding the Biological Assessment prepared for this project. Although the Biological Assessment is not technically part of the EIS, it is related to issues discussed in the EIS and worth mentioning. NOAA staff asked a series of questions primarily related to surface water management. One of the key questions in this correspondence is how storm water discharged from the study area into Johns Creek affects salmon habitat at the mouth of the stream, and whether the City's storm water standards and proposed mitigation measures are adequate to address this concern. ICF International and CH2MHiIl, our consultants on this project, are busy responding to these questions based on analysis that is being completed at this time. Both the NOAA letter and the consultant's plan to respond are included in Exhibit 3. Staff Review Interagency team (IAT) staff have actively participated in the review of the DEIS, including representatives from the Renton Housing Authority and from the Community Services, Public Works, Community and Economic Development, and Fire and Emergency Services departments at the City of Renton. Staff reviewed and prepared comments on the preliminary DEIS and those comments were integrated into the DEIS that was issued on December 17, 2010. Since that time, two meetings have been held with the full IAT, and several meetings with individual workgroups have been held. During these meetings staff reviewed public comments, discussed the pros and cons of different alternatives, and worked through design considerations for Sunset Terrace, Sunset Boulevard, and the Master Drainage Plan. ERC Report- Preferred Alternative.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmento! Review Committee Report SUNSET AREA PLANNED ACTION AND EIS LUA 10-052 Report of February 7, 2011. Page 4 of 10 Environmentally Preferred Alternative Now that the comments have been received on the DEIS, the City must prepare a final EIS (FEIS) according to both SEPA and NEPA rules. Under NEPA rules, the HIS must specify an environmentally preferred alternative. In the comments received from the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the City is reminded that "According to the Council on Environmental Quality, 'The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's Section 101.' ...NEPA Section 101 states that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government, '... to use all practicable means... to the end that the Nation may - 1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; 2. Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; 3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences, 4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice; S. Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and 6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of deple table resources."' Alternative 1, or the no action alternative, does not fulfill the policy objectives described above. Growth and development would naturally occur over time and it would perpetuate a system of inefficient land use and inefficient use of resources. Each new development would be responsible for managing all storm water on site. Sunset Boulevard would remain as it is today, efficient for vehicles but acting as a pedestrian barrier and with very little potential for multi -modal transportation options. New amenities and major improvements to public facilities would not be implemented. Although there are fewer immediate impacts with Alternative 1 because there is no major action, in the long term the consequences of inaction would not fulfill any of the federal environmental policy objectives. Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 both propose actions that would fulfill the policies of NEPA Section 101. Although the DEIS still assumes piecemeal redevelopment of the surrounding neighborhood in Alternatives 2 and 3, redevelopment of Sunset Terrace would act as a catalyst so it is likely that the area would see the positive long-term effects of compact, urban development sooner. Compact development focuses growth into a smaller area making better use of existing networks for transportation and service delivery and creating fewer regional impacts such as the loss of open space or farmland at the urban -rural edge. Concentrated growth creates a critical mass of population that supports business and shopping opportunities and the location of civic amenities within walking distance from residential areas, reducing dependence on the automobile. Civic improvements to transportation networks, parks and recreation, and service delivery provide amenities that improve quality of life, improve health and safety, and create a neighborhood that is aesthetically pleasing. Such improvements would also be used partly to mitigate for some of the local impacts of increased densities such as increased traffic, increased surface water run-off, or a reduction in personal. open space (such as a yard associated with a single-family home). Alternative 3 goes farther than Alternative 2 to best achieve the NEPA policy goals. In measures such as storm water management, housing affordability at Sunset Terrace, implementation of multi -modal ERC Report- Preferred Altern ative. doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report SUNSET AREA PLANNED ACTION AND FIS LUA 10-052 Report of February 7, 2011. Page 5 of 10 transportation options for Sunset Boulevard, and creation of public amenities, Alternative 3 not only provides benefits to the neighborhood and the region but acts as a role model. Public improvements would act as a demonstration and incentive for private development. The Sunset Area could be a regional or national model for sustainable gray -field re -development. As a result Alternative 3 best meets the environmental policy objectives in NEPA Section 101 given the analysis in the DEIS. However, based on public comments and staff work, the following changes are proposed to Alternative 3 for your consideration. Sunset Terrace Several changes would be made from Alternative 3 for the preferred alternative for Sunset Terrace, as shown in the draft concept drawing below. 8 4 D 'w°+""r: KM Q AeOve WtJapefts*Mt DRAFT PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT - Q WAHMIY=Townh""s Q rMwe aim owe Further refinement will be necessary based on analysis CW ? cmeffmft aww" Q pwwgaMowe: Mao performed for the FEIS. ill■■ ter OMMOKM ! "K*U„ ® 11"" WMW d.W.., M 170 H U M ERC Report- Preferred Alternative. doc City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report SUNSET AREA PLANNED ACTION AND EIS LUA 10-052 Report of February 7, 2011. Page 5 of 10 Those changes include the following: • The potential number of residential units would be about the same on the Edmonds -Glenwood site (in the northwest corner of the rendering), but the unit configuration with townhomes facing Glenwood and two smaller buildings with stacked flats instead of a very large, 112 unit stacked flat building. This should reduce the bulk and scale of these buildings and orient the majority of the traffic to Edmonds Ave NE, which reduces impacts on adjacent neighbors and better fits the scale and intensity of (existing and future) residential development on Glenwood Ave NE. • A larger neighborhood park will be created to serve the increased population of the neighborhood. In order to create this park the mix of commercial, residential, and civic facilities east of Harrington Ave NE will be changed, and some of the proposed housing units west of Harrington Ave NE will be located outside of Sunset Terrace on other developable sites within the neighborhood. This also affects the configuration of the street network in this area. • Since RHA is already working with Providence Healthcare to develop a project on the Piha site (northeast of the park on the rendering), the number of housing units on that site has been reduced from Alternative 3. In place of the housing will be a PACE (Program for All-inclusive Care for the Elderly) facility- an innovative blend of health, social, and support services that help elderly clients stay in their homes longer and age in place. PACE will be available to individuals in the attached senior housing, the neighborhood, and within a broader service region as well. Neighborhood Lond Use A few growth assumption changes have been made: Based on the concept for Sunset Terrace shown above, the proposed changes to accommodate the expanded park area will produce a net effect of fewer new dwelling units and jobs than found in Alternative 3. A 1.1 acre vacant parcel that is shown as a Native Growth Protection Easement from development capacity in the North Subarea was removed from the estimate of potential redevelopable acreage resulting in reduction of 6 dwelling units of capacity in that area. Assumptions about the redevelopment potential for the St. Vincent de Paul site in the Sunset Mixed -Use Subarea was reduced by about half of the previously assumed land capacity on the due to eligibility as a historic resource which may mean a future site design that avoids the structure resulting in lower dwelling units and employment assumptions within this Subarea. Table 1 compares the Preferred Alternative to the Draft EIS alternatives. ERC Report- Preferred Alternative. doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report SUNSET AREA PLANNED ACTION AND EIS LUA 10-052 Report of February 7, 2011, Page 7 of 10 Table 1. Summary of Land Capacity – Net Additional Growth above Existing Subarea Dwelling Units/Jobs Alternative 1 Alternative 21 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative Potential Sunset Dwelling units 168-175' 310 479 266 Terrace Jobs 493 164 182 79 Redevelopment Sunset Mixed Dwelling units 1,109 1,052 1,509 1,481 Use Jobs 410-652 1,728 2,875 2,802 Central, North Dwelling units 206 296 518 592 and South Jobs 152-213 273 273 273 Total Study Dwelling 1,483– 1,658 2,506 2,339 Area units' 1,490 Populations 3,430- 3,830 5,789 5,403 3,442 smp— Employment 251,700 844,351 1,310,113 1,247,444 ICF SF INTERNAT 1" Jobs' 611--9147 2,165 3,330 3,154 1 The Draft EIS technical analysis for transportation, water, and sewer models studied two more net units in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under Alternatives 1 and 3, and a slightly different mix of dwellings and jobs in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under Alternative 2 (12 more dwellings and 38 fewer jobs). These differences are negligible and represent a less than 2% difference across the Planned Action Study Area. z The lower range represents proposed concepts on RNA's two vacant sites based on funding applications currently in process_ The upper range represents the results of a land capacity analysis. 3 The estimate is based on a 9096/10% housing/employment split between residential and service uses; the housing/employment share based on example proposed developments prepared for RHA's two vacant sites in the Sunset Terrace subarea. 4 Includes 217 dwellings and approximately 8 jobs associated with Harrington Square constructed in Summer 2010. 5 Applies an average household size of 2.31, an average of two census tracts 252 and 254. 6 Includes retail, service, and education jobs. 7 The lower figure shown is based on a commercial employment rate of 400 square feet per employee for retail and service jobs. If applying a commercial employment rate of 250 square feet per employee, the employment would equal the upper range. This latter figure is more similar to Renton Transportation Zone assumptions. Sunset Boulevard Sunset Boulevard would include improvements for all forms of mobility and urban design amenities should result in an inviting corridor creating a feeling of connectivity instead of acting as a barrier. This will include analysis of improvements for transit, pedestrian safety and comfort, bicycle and multi -use pathways. Full compliance with the City's complete streets ordinance will be expected, with the exception of the area adjacent to an existing wall located between Edmonds Ave NE and Harrington Ave NE. In this constrained area, the preferred alternative would keep the existing curb and 5 -ft sidewalk with no planting strip. Sample cross sections are shown on the next page. The preferred alternative will also include analysis of a re -worked street network in Sunset Terrace to accommodate an increase in the size of the park. ERC Report- Preferred Alternative.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report SUNSET AREA PLANNED ACTION AND E15 LUA 10-052 Report of February 7, 2011. Page 8 of 10 APPROXIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY 12' e' 12' 12' IT 12' 11' S' MULT1•USE PLANTER W9 THRU W8THRU MANA13ED EDTHRU ERTHRU ESTWU LANE TRAIL ED etKE IANE LANE LANE LEFT TURN LANE LANE MEDIAN LANE OR ER MEDIAN INKE LANE M ♦f { EXISTING { SIDEWALK I EXISTING Section 1: Adjacent to Existing Wall between Edmonds and Harrington WALL APPROXIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY Section 2: Between Harrington Ave and NE 10" ST APPROXIMATE FWHT--OFWAY 1z 1z IT 12' 11' F 8' L' MULTI -USE TRAIL P[AHTER WSTHRU LANE WSTHRU LANE LIANAMI) LEFTTURN LAME OR MEDIAN ESTWU LANE ]ED THRU LANE ED etKE IANE PLANTER SIDEWALK MEDIAN �1p Section 2: Between Harrington Ave and NE 10" ST APPROXIMATE FWHT--OFWAY Section 3: Between NE 10th ST and NE 12th ST CH2MHILL ERC Report- Preferred Alternative. doc Iz Iz IT IT 12' B' r MULTFUSE TRAIL PLANTER WN rHRU Wl THRU LANE LANE MANAGED LEFTTURN E6 THRU LANE E6 THRU LANE PLANTER SIDEWALK LANE OR MEDIAN �1p Section 3: Between NE 10th ST and NE 12th ST CH2MHILL ERC Report- Preferred Alternative. doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report SUNSET AREA PLANNED ACTION AND EIS LUA 10-052 Report of February 7, 2011. Page 9 of 10 Drainage This would be consistent with Alternative 3 and provide a significant network of low -impact development (LID) storm water facilities through a master drainage plan. Below are sample street sections showing what this may look like. so' = I I e. 12' APPROXNATE EYASTMIG RIGHT-OF-WAY 10 10' 8' SIDEWALK 5' SIDEWALKI SIDEWALK RAMGMDEN PARKING PLANTER I _ � � 58'Proposed Road Settlor Section 1: Rain Garden on West Side of Harrington so, APPROXMAATE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY 12' 10' 10' 12' 5' I RAIN,GMDEN RAINtARDEN SIDEWALK tt{ I Section 2: Rain Garden Both Sides I $. . ' SIDEWALK. PLANTER I I I I 58'Proposed Road Smdon 60' APPROMATE EMSTING RIGHT-OF-WAY —04 6' 10' 10' 8, PARKING PARKING PLANTER SIDEWALKi I I Section 3: Parking Both Sides CH2MHILL ERC Report- Preferred Alternative. doc 5$' Proposed Road Sectlon 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY City of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION AND NEXT STEPS Based on the information received during the comment period, staff recommends that the ERC commence with preparation of an HIS with a revised Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative. The next step will include analyzing the preferred alternative and preparing more detailed responses to the comments received. This information will be included in the FEIS, which will be reviewed by the IAT prior to being forwarded to the ERC for issuance and publication (March 2011). Once the HIS is finalized the City will proceed to adoption of the Planned Action ordinance for the Sunset Area (May 2011). Exhibit 1- Comment Letters Received Exhibit 2- Memorandum of February 2, 2011 from Lisa Grueter to Erika Conkling regarding Sunset Area Community Draft EIS: Preliminary Responses to Comments Exhibit 3- Memorandum of February 2, 2011 from Lisa Grueter to Erika Conkling regarding Status of Comments on Sunset Area Planned Action Biological Assessment FRC Report- Preferred Alternative. doc 1 EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 From: Erika Conkling To: Grueter, Lisa; "Roger Mason"; Subject: FW: KC Metro Transit Comments on Sunset Area Planned Action/ EIS, LUA 10-052 Date: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:35:31 PM Erika Conkling, AICP Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econkling@rentonwa.gov From: Kriedt, Gary [mailto: Gary. Kriedt@kingcounty.gov] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 4:18 PM To: Erika Conkling Cc: Hahn, LG; Johnson, Doug Subject: KC Metro Transit Comments on Sunset Area Planned Action/EIS, LUA 10- 052 Hi Erika -- King County Metro Transit staff reviewed the Sunset Area Planned Action/EIS (LUA 10-052) and we have the following comments. Transit Service in the Area: The project area is served by two all -day Metro bus routes (105 & 240), a peak direction commuter route operating to/from downtown Seattle (111), and two local van routes (908 & 909). With these five routes the area is fairly well served by transit. Route 240 is the primary transit service through the general area and it serves the immediate Sunset Terrace redevelopment area. It operates along NE Sunset Blvd between Renton and Bellevue every 30 minutes Monday -Saturday and hourly on Sunday. The 240 was designated as a core service in the Six -Year Development Plan, with targeted frequency improvements of 15 minutes in the weekday peak and 30 minutes on Sunday (neither have yet been implemented due to the on-going Metro budget shortfall). Route 909 operates along Harrington Ave NE and NE Sunset Blvd - east of Harrington. The primary bus zones serving Sunset Terrace are located eastbound on NE Sunset Blvd. farside of Harrington Ave. NE (240, 909), westbound on Sunset farside of Harrington (240) and southbound on Harrington farside of Sunset D i con MB71- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 (909). Bus Stop Improvement Request: Metro requests that improvements be made to a bus stop on Harrington Ave. NE just north of NE 7th St. heading north (bus stop number 46558). That bus stop is currently substandard and could use a 10 ft. K 4 ft. ADA landing area at the back of the sidewalk. Please contact LG Hahn, Transit Planner, at 206-684-1725, Ig_ hahn(a)_kingcounty.gov, to discuss. Thank you! Gary Kriedt, Senior Environmental Planner Metro Transit 201 South Jackson St., MS KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 (246) 684-1166 fax= (206)-684-1900 gary.kriedt65)kingcounty.gov EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 From: Erika Conkling To: Grueter, Lisa; "Roger Mason"; Subject: FW: Sunsent Area Community Planned Action DEIS Comments LUA#10-052 Date: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:38:16 PM Attachments: Sunset Area Communitv DEIS Comments.r)df Erika Conkling, AICP Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econkling@rentonwa.gov From: Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP)[mailto:Gretchen.Kaehler@DAHP.wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:35 PM To: Erika Conkling Subject: Re: Sunsent Area Community Planned Action DEIS Comments LUA#10- 052 Ms. Conkling, Please see attached comments. Thank you, Gretchen Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archaeologist, Local Governments Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Ph:360-586-3088 Cell: 360-628-2755 EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 ' STATW 0. a leer+ STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 - Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address: PO Box 48343 - Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360) 586-3065 - Fax Number (360) 586-3067 ■ Website: www.dahp.wa.gov December 30, 2010 Ms. Ericka Conkling City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 091010-31-HUD-CDBG Property: Sunset Terrace Area Community Planned Action EIS Re: Archaeology -Revision of Inadvertent Discovery Procedures Required Dear Ms. Conkling: Thank you for contacting the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). The above referenced project has been reviewed on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer. We concur that no further archaeological work is necessary. However, the inadvertent discovery procedures presented in Appendix J do not comply with state laws and procedures for the inadvertent discovery of human remains (see attached). C. Please revise to read that local law enforcement and the King County Coroner must be notified as expeditiously as possible. The county coroner determines if the remains are forensic or non -forensic. If they are determined non -forensic, the King County Coroner will contact the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). • D. Please revise to read that if the human remains are determined to be non -forensic (not related to a criminal investigation) then the DAH? will take jurisdiction over those remains. The State 2 Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Indian or Non - Indian. DAH? will handle all consultation with the affected Tribes and parties as to the treatment of the remains. The above revisions should be reflected in the final EIS. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions (360) 586-3088 gretchen.kaehIer(( dahhp.wa.W Sincerely, Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archaeologist, Local Governments :r DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION ProleCl the ftl. ShDp-_ rhe FU1672 u EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery of Human Skeletal Remains or Cultural Resources during Redevelopment of the Edmonds - Glenwood Lot, Harrington Lot, and Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex in Renton, Washington Any human skeletal remains that are discovered during this project will be treated with dignity and respect. A. If any City of Renton employee or any of the contractors or subcontractors believes that he or she has made an unanticipated discovery of human skeletal remains or cultural resources, all work adjacent to the discovery shall cease. The area of work stoppage will be adequate to provide for the security, protection, and integrity of the human skeletal remains, in accordance with Washington State Law. The City of Renton project manager will be contacted. B. The City of Renton project manager or the City of Renton representative will be responsible for taking appropriate steps to protect the discovery. At a minimum, the immediate area will be secured to a distance of thirty (30] feet from the discovery. Vehicles, equipment, and unauthorized personnel will not be permitted to traverse the discovery site. C. If skeletal remains are discovered, the City of Renton will immediately call the King County Sheriffs office and a cultural resource specialist or consultant qualified to identify human skeletal remains. The Sheriffs office may arrange for a representative of the county coroner's office to examine the discovery. The remains should he protected in place until the cultural resource specialist has examined the find. D. If the human skeletal remains are determined to be Native American, the City of Renton will notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribes. E. If cultural resources are uncovered, such as stone tools or flakes, fire -cracked rocks from a hearth feature, butchered animal bones, or historic -era objects (e.g., patent medicine bottles, milk tins, clay pipes, building foundations), the City of Renton will arrange for a qualified professional archaeologist to evaluate the find. Again, the cultural resources will be protected in place until the archaeologist has examined the find. F. If the cultural resources find is determined to be significant, the City of Renton cultural resource specialist/archaeologist or consulting archaeologist will immediately contact the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribes to seek consultation regarding the eligibility of any further discovery for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Cultural Resources 5urveyRepo rt—PotentlalSunsetTerrace C1 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard ICF 00593.10 EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 From: KvIcarek, Ryan E To: Greeter Lisa _SEA Washington State PHAs, mrg; "Erika Conkling "Mark Santos -Johnson'; Wilder, Jim; Wall, Richard B;_ Tennison, Carmen; 7inck, Dean; Stewart, Harlan; Heston, Alfred; Hudgeons, Jeremy; Jensen, Sara; Peavlerstewart, Deborah; Subject: Sunset Terrace Noise Mitigation Date: Tuesday, January 04, 20114:26:05 PM Attachments: image001.p7g Fig2-10.pdf Sunset Terrace DEIS Noise Mitiaation.PDF Lisa and Co., We regret we could not summarize these answers to your questions in time for the Draft EIS, but are hopeful this might be helpful in preparing for the Final EIS. Noise Mitigation for Sunset Terrace DEIS: The Responsible Entity (City of Renton) does have the authority to exercise the 24 CFR 55.105 exception to raise the acceptable noise zone from 65Ldn to 70Ldn as long as all of the requirements of §55.105 are met and documented with explicit approval from the Certifying Officer (Mayor) as to why the noise attenuation measures that would normally be required for new construction in the Ldn 65 to Ldn 70 zone cannot be met. In addition to the requirements of §51,105, the Special Requirements of §51.104 must also be met, requiring "a minimum of 5 decibels additional sound attenuation for buildings having noise -sensitive uses if the day -night average sound level is greater than 65 decibels but does not exceed 70 decibels, or a minimum of 10 decibels of additional sound attenuation if the day -night average sound level is greater than 70 decibels but does not exceed 75 decibels." Concerning the opening of windows: The opening of windows and the requirements for mechanical ventilation are addressed in Chapter 4, Page 35 of the HUD Noise Guidebook and copied below. Being that opening of windows will expose the units adjacent to Sunset Road to levels above the HUD interior noise maximum of 45 decibels, it is generally required that these units contain sealed windows and that mechanical ventilation be installed. However, there is a cavaet of resident choice in this matter. (1) If it is the resident's choice to open the window, and (2) that choice is not imposed upon them by excessive temperatures or conditions based on regional norms, i.e., (AC not utilized in the NW), and (3) there is no mechanical ventilation or air conditioning present in the rest of the building, and (4) the noise environment external to the building complies with the Site Acceptability Standards of §51.103, and (5) §51.103(c)(ii) the building is constructed in a manner common to the area or, if of uncommon construction, has at least the equivalent noise attenuation characteristics, and (6) the Certifying Officer uses his/her authority to require and RHA accepts that all reasonable attempts will be made to meet the HUD Interior Noise Goals when windows are unopened with §51,101(9), which state that "It is a HUD goal that the interior auditory environment shall not exceed a day -night average sound level of 45 decibels. Attenuation measures to meet these interior goals shall be employed where feasible. Emphasis shall be given to noise sensitive interior spaces such as bedrooms. Minimum attenuation requirements are prescribed in 51.104(x)., then the project can proceed without the requirement of sealing the windows. Particular attention should be paid to ensure that special construction and ventilation techniques used to address mitigation requirements is done in a fair and equitable manner that does not favor one group of individuals over another. This is, unless of course, particular units or techniques are used to specifically address a particular population (i.e., breathe easy units for those suffering from asthma). Concerning the space between Sunset Rd and the Multifamily structures: Working of the schematics of Alternative 3, of particular interest is the possible open green space between Sunset Rd. and the multifamily structures. We here again get in to the issue of resident choice and opportunity fused with the requirements of acceptable noise levels. As long as residents are not forced to utilize a particular area of a site that exposes them to the highest noise levels of the site, 2 then residents can use that area as long as it is not designed for noise -sensitive uses that could become unsafe for residents. An example of this would be purposively building a playground in the grassy area between Sunset Rd. and the prospective units. The noise level must be at a level where a parent can give directions to their child on that playground in order to provide for their safety. If there were no other options to enjoy a playground except one built where children were forced to play where noise levels are normally unacceptable and unsafe, then this would be unacceptable. It does appear that the planners have contemplated green space throughout the site plan that provide equitable and safe resident options, but the details concerning the subject parcel of land are not apparent through the limited sketches available. Other thoughts: The Alternative 3 sketch does indicate a good balance between designing a walkable, pedestrian 3 T friendly streetscape that allows for an adequate traffic flow, albeit calmed, that has available parking on the street. Perhaps the addition of inter -connected bike lanes throughout the proposed site and NE Sunset Blvd could add to this `Il EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 21711- LUA 10-052 • sustainable neighborhood_ 24 CFR Part 58.4(a) stipulates that "Responsible entities shall assume the responsibility for environmental review, decision-making, and action that would otherwise apply to HUD.." We are confident that the City of Renton will take the proper course of action concerning the requirements outlined above and in accordance with all applicable regulations. Final Thought: We appreciate the cooperation and outreach to the HUD office regarding these noise requirements and the redevelopment of Sunset Terrace as a whole. Early involvement is key to a successful partnership and regulatory compliance throughout the length of this project. ifAndows Sound enters a building through its acoustically weakest points, and windows are one of the weakest parts of a wall. An open or weak window will severely negate the effect of a very strong wall. Whenever windows are going to be part of the building design, they should be given acoustical consideration, Figure 17 illustrates the effects of windows on the sound transmission of wails. For example, if a wall with an STC rating of 45 contains a window with an STC rating of 25 covering 30°,10 of its area. the overall STC of the composite partition will be 35, a reduction of 10 dB, The following is a discussion of technrpues that can be used to reduce noise in a building by means of Its windows, These techniques range from a blocking of the principal paths of noise entry to a blocking of the most indirect paths, Class windows. The first step In reducing unwanted sound Is to close and soar the windows. The greatest amount of sound insulation can be achieved if windows are permanently seated. However, openable acoustical windows have tin developed which are fairly effective in reducing sound.' Whether or not the sealing is Permanent, keeping windows closed necessitates the installation Of mechanical ventilation systems. if you are dealing with single family houses and some of the windows are facing away from all noise sources, a wrote house fan may be bet ler and cheaper than air conditioning_ In multifamily housing or where all windows are exposed to the noise sources you will have to go with the air conditioning. If windows must be openabte, special -seals are available which allow windows to be opened? fieduce window size. The smaller the windows, the greater the transmission loss of the total partition of which the window is a part. reducing the window size is a technique that is used because(a) it precludes the cost Of expensive acoustical windows, and (b) it saves money by cutting down the use of grass. The problems with this technique are (a) it is not very effective in reducing noise: e.g.. reducing the proportion of window to wall size from l= FK* Y] STC ra 100 50 30 20 10 .14e 2'h `` JcA 0� c3 10% 30% 50% Lip t00% 3 s to 20 30 _% 100 Decibels to be s0traclOd from STC of wall !o obtain effective STC of corn*Wite b&MOr Increase gloss thickne". If ordinary windows are insufficlerll In reducing noise impacts In spite of sealing techniques, then thicker glass can be Installed. In addition, this glass can be laminated with a tough transparent plastic whlch is both noise and shatter resistant. Glass reduces noise by the mass principle; that is, the thicker the glass, the more noise resistant it will be. A Jt2Amh thick glass has a maxim urn STC rating of 35 dB compared to a 25 dB rating for ordinary 1115 inch glass, IuS. Dep$ nwnt of Houslno arta urban Devokx nest, A study of TechrYques to increase the Sound tnsutation of Widing EW tents, Bort No. WR 73-5, WasNAM00, R.C., J une 1973 - [Las Artgefee i)eparsment of Airport$, Guide to the sou wproOilnt# or Existing Matructimm on use of araph 1. Subtract ttte STC value of it* door, window or op DNrlg from the STC value 41 the wall. 2, Enter the vertical axis of the graph at the point tUt rnatctxrs the value from step t. 3. Read acrpss to the curve that represents the pore*ntne of i he total arca of the wall that is taken up by lice door, window, or omaing. A. Read down to tt►a honZontal axis_ 5, SubtraCl the value on the honzontal axis from IheOriginal STC value of the watt. The result is the compositor STC value of the wall and the dw. window or opening. preci,idi;s the cost dt expensive acousttcai Windows, and i'b� it Saves lu S bepartment o' HousiN and Lktan m l�,I L�ttifi HcRepb F*bruary 6aTbnLW*U4QSJ�hni s to g:ass. The Problems with thiS sncrease the Smnd Insulation of SL WWtN technsgLl¢ are (aj it is not very effth-tine Elements, FWport No. VVR 73-5, Washington. in redLiCMg noise. e.g., reducing the D.z., June :973. es DeWment of Airports, proportion of window to wail size fromLQs GoOds re tree Soundproofing of Existing 50 °'o to 201�6 reduces noise by only 3 Homes Against Exterior vase_ Report NO decibels: srxd (b) many building codes WK 70-Z, March 1970, pp. 9-11.22-3D. In rKuire a minimum window to wall ttiis report, thetunctlon and performance of a size ratio. number of operaNa seals are described_ Ryan E. Mielcarek PHRS-Facilities Management Dept. of Housing and Urban Development HUD Region X Seattle 206-220-6205 EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 7 RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION L__J Meeting Minutes January 5, 2011 Renton City Hall 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers Planning Commissioners Present: Michael Chen, Michael Drollinger, Ray Giometti, Gwendolyn High, Michael O'Halloran, Nancy Osborn, Kevin Poole, Ed Prince Planning Commissioner Absent: Martin Regge City Staff Present: Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator; Chip Vincent, Planning Director; Erika Conkling, Senior Planner; Judith Subia, Administrative Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER: Commission Chair Prince called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Commission Vice Chair Drollinger called roll. Commissioner Regge was absent and excused. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of November 3, December 1, and December S, 2010 were approved as written. 4. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED: None 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS: None 6. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None 7. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: • The Quendall Terminals DEIS comment meeting was held last night. As a result of numerous requests, the comment period has been extended. The DEIS will be presented to the Commission in the near future. • CED and Council are working on the 2011 Planning Work Program. We are looking to schedule a Joint Planning & Development Committee and Planning Commission meeting. Possible dates include February 2, 16, March 2, and 16. • Chip shared a letter from Mayor Law to Rich Wagner, a former PC member of 14 years, who recently received a lifetime achievement award from AIA. 8. SUNSET AREA PLANNED ACTION/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) BRIEFING: Alex gave a short introduction regarding the work done so far on this project. Erika and Lisa Grueter, consultant from ICF International, gave a ,presentation regarding this item. Audience Comment Linda Perrine (Renton, WA): Ms. Perrine owns a duplex near Glenwood and Edmonds. She has a question about new jobs that is referenced in the presentation. She also has a question regarding buildings being built, but no storm improvements being made. Erika answered that these new jobs would be permanent EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2 January 5, 2411 1 cont. jobs, not relating to the construction or development of the project. When new buildings are built, the developer needs to comply with the necessary improvements. Howard McOmber, Highlands Community Association President (Renton, WA): Mr. McOmber has a question regarding greenway drainage. Erika explained that this drainage includes rain gardens or swales that are in the right of way, requiring an 8 -foot planting strip, where a low impact development style stormwater vault 2 can be installed. Mr. McOmber asked if more width for rights of way will be needed. Erika explained that in many cases, the rights of way are very large. There are areas along Sunset Blvd that may need additional right of way. He also asked that the City not use eminent domain, be flexibilie so a developer can be creative with development, and keep the costs (such as impact fees) low for developers. "37 Sandel DeMastus, Highlands Community Association Vice President (Renton, WA): Ms. DeMastus is concerned about the elderly and wants to make sure the seniors and disabled are taken care of. Angie Pretty (Renton, WA): Ms. Pretty had a question regarding housing affordability and its impacts to the 4 I School District. Erika answered that the City has been working with RSD to ensure that growth can be accommodated by RSD. SUNSET AREA PLANNED ACTION/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) PUBLIC HEARING: Audience Comment Kathleen Ossenkop (Renton, WA): Ms. Ossenkop has been a property owner in the Highlands for over 40 years. She has seen a great deal of new investment and revitalization in the last 15 years. She's concerned 5 that the City does not understand what the long term residents have seen. Adding 500 properties into the Highlands will impact the residents that already live there. She is in favor of the Evergreen Terrace type of _ housing for seniors. Karen Williams, Housing Development Consortium of King County (Seattle, WA): Ms. Williams thanked 6 City staff for the work that has been done so far, especially partnering with the Renton Housing Authority to ensure that there are benefits for the low income residents. --- Lori McFarland (Renton, WA): Ms. McFarland is grateful for the work that the City is doing. As a long 71 time resident and a design engineer, she talked about interconnection of traffic signals. Pedestrians end up 20 to 25 feet away from heavy traffic. This greatly improves traffic congestion and pedestrian ---- safety. Ms. McFarland is in favor of Alternative #3. ----Jim Houghton (Bellevue, WA): Mr. Houghton owns property in the Highlands. He is currently working with the Planning staff to build a 10 -unit condominium project for senior housing with affordable 8 housing. The ARCH (A Regional Coalition for Housing) program greatly facilitates the sales of affordable housing and encouraged the City to become a part of this program. 10. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Written comments on the Sunset Area Planned Action/EES will be accepted through January 31, 2011. The next Commission meeting will be on January 19, 2011. 11. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:33 p.m. Ed Prince, Chair Michael O'Halloran, Secretary 5 EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 Renton Sunset Area Community NEPA/SEPA Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Comment Sheet You are invited to comment on the DEIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, or other information in the document. ti' i+'43 Q ov[z br � ► e.44-4 i Ai q J -'k' i vc c�rY-s S . F�CIL 1_ l dt r� S i} 6Y� S't S `�C V& IN � ►' ` CGS � C �fi A� i S `G t You y turn com ents �n at the end of this meeting. Or you may submit written comments on df before 5 p.m. January 31, 2011. Send comments to:�- Erika Conkling, AICP {`� -�� 4-c A8 SU - Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econklingcwrentonwa.eov 1-0r. 0c;T-aVIOL4 1300K A<,, k ea b5 WIN • ` �. l • L i. _ as 11 �L)•� i• .i iW a 1-i f ate' l• M, � l +l I i Y Lr• ' .�. SL.• I � � �, � �� i��r� F . i v , ' ■ 4 11 ♦� I A ,1111 • a •_J UI ti' i+'43 Q ov[z br � ► e.44-4 i Ai q J -'k' i vc c�rY-s S . F�CIL 1_ l dt r� S i} 6Y� S't S `�C V& IN � ►' ` CGS � C �fi A� i S `G t You y turn com ents �n at the end of this meeting. Or you may submit written comments on df before 5 p.m. January 31, 2011. Send comments to:�- Erika Conkling, AICP {`� -�� 4-c A8 SU - Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econklingcwrentonwa.eov 1-0r. 0c;T-aVIOL4 1300K A<,, k ea b5 EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 6 From: Erika Conkling To: Grueter, Lisa; cc: "Roger.Mason@CH2M.com"; Subject: FW: HDC Comments on Sunset Area Date: Monday, January 24, 20114:19:28 PM Attachments: Sunset Area Testimony 1-2011.pdf Erika Conkling, AICP Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-5578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econkling@rentonwa.gov From: Karen Williams [mailto:Karen@housingconsortium.org] Sent: Monday, January 24, 20114:03 PM To: Erika Conkling; Chip Vincent Subject: HDC Comments on Sunset Area Erika & Chip, Attached is my testimony from the Sunset Area public hearing on January 5th' As I've said to both of you, and I mentioned in my testimony, HDC supports the mixed-use, mixed income goals of the Sunset Area plan. HDC wants to ensure that this redevelopment does not increase the affordable housing challenges that low- income, working families already face in Renton, by overlooking the potential loss of private, affordable rental stock and displacement of low-income households. This concern is not unique to Renton, but rather is a challenge in all neighborhood redevelopment, where investments tend to increase property values and displace existing residents when properties are redeveloped and housing costs increase. HDC wants to acknowledge that the city of Renton has demonstrated clear efforts to support affordability in Renton, through its partnership with RHA, through its commitment to capital in its Housing Opportunity Fund, and in policies developed by its human services and planning departments. HDC wants to commend Renton for these accomplishments and hopes that the recommendations attached will be considered as additional tools that the city can use further its affordable housing goa Is. EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 Thanks to both of you for all you have done on this plan. Tha n ks, Karen Williams Suburban Cities Policy Director Housing Development Consortium 1402 Third Avenue, Suite 709 Seattle, WA 98101 208.882.9541 www.housinaconsortium. Every Heart Needs A Home. Join HDC in Olympia on February 14th for Housing and Homelessness Advocacy Day. Help us bring 200 advocates from King County, Register here. EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT consortium Beyond RHA units, the plan does not address housing affordability. There are several privately owned residential buildings in the "Adjacent Area" that currently provide I affordable rental housing, but due to their condition, will likely be torn down to meet the desired design and density goals of the redevelopment. The plan does not address how current, low-income residents in non -RHA housing will be addressed through relocation assistance or replacement housing. lof 3 1402 Third Avenue, Suite 709 rP0�nfly Seattle, Washington 98101 206.682.9541 Fax 206.623.4669 www.housingconsorti=.Drg i4ovs owliableµ"lm titemtoss Date: January 5, 2011 Lawrinc0l" Viausing orgenda"on6 To: Renton Planning Commission Community Dawiapnwt corporation Erika Conkling, Department of Community and Economic Development 5peclal Needs Noosing ations Organizations From: Karen Williams, Policy Director, Housing Development Consortium - King County' wbni gauthorities RE: Public testimony regarding Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft EIS CommunitY Action pies worktorce Hnusing organizations On behalf of the Housing Development Consortium (HDC), a nonprofit organization Public peveioprnent Author comprised of affordable housing developers, private businesses, and public partners 6avemment asenues and whose mission is to ensure housing affordability throughout King County, I would like to cammiss'ons , and Design thank the Renton City staff and Planning Commission for the thoughtful and architects socialists Spat '. collaborative work that has been dedicated to the Sunset Area redevelopment planning. DeveloP�nt Certil+ed,P`uttflcAceountaut�_ While there are many elements to the Sunset Area redevelopment plan, HDCS Regional Funders and Lenders comments are focused on Impacts to affordable housing. Renton city staff have made Nadon8l Funders and ter+ +s great strides to work in partnership with the Renton Housing Authority to revitalize theCornmunny i"'"`rLB1t Speciailsts community both to attract new residents and businesses and to improve the quality of ProPeltY Managers housing and services available to existing residents and to a range of household t_aw firm incomes. Contractors Law The plan includes specific points on haw the Renton Housing Authority will replace — - -- -- existing public housing with comparable unit size and affordability in the new mixed - income developments and how they will help RHA families with the temporary relocation during construction. Beyond RHA units, the plan does not address housing affordability. There are several privately owned residential buildings in the "Adjacent Area" that currently provide I affordable rental housing, but due to their condition, will likely be torn down to meet the desired design and density goals of the redevelopment. The plan does not address how current, low-income residents in non -RHA housing will be addressed through relocation assistance or replacement housing. lof 3 1402 Third Avenue, Suite 709 rP0�nfly Seattle, Washington 98101 206.682.9541 Fax 206.623.4669 www.housingconsorti=.Drg EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 HDC supports the mixed-use, mixed income goals of the Sunset Area plan and is not suggesting that the. city preserve dilapidated -housing. HDC wants to ensure that this redevelopment does not increase the affordable housing challenges that low-income, working families already face in Renton', by overlooking the potential loss of private, affordable rental stock and displacement of low-income households. This concern is not unique to Renton, but rather is a challenge in all neighborhood redevelopment, where investments tend to increase property values and displace existing residents when properties are redeveloped and housing costs increase. MDC trusts that the City of Renton will do all it canto mitigate the negative impacts to existing residents and will continue its reputation of implementing policies and plans to ensure a full range of housing affordability in the Sunset Area redevelopment. Recommended Acdons to mitigate harm to low-income residents in non -RHA housing that may be displaced and to realize a full range of affordability In new, mixed -income residential developments. a. Work with private landlords to gather data on existing private market housing in the "Adjacent Area" to determine the number and household size of low-income residents. This data would serve two purposes. One purpose is to inform the city about the number of low - 2 income households that may need assistance finding new housing when buildings are redeveloped. Secondly, the data can be used to set targets for the percentage of units that should -be affordable in new mixed -income developments and what the affordability levels should be. This data would be in addition to any growth projections in the city's Comprehenslve Plan Housing Element. b. Engage nonprofit housing providers that can help the city plan for relocation and 'assist with 3 outreach to the low-income families, so as to minimize negative impacts on children's school attendance or adults' ability to maintain work during relocation. c. Apply best practices learned from other community redevelopment experiences. Many cities across the country have redeveloped neighborhoods with exlstmgresidents, end" have - __- — examples of. how to engage residents in the process; how to engage landlords and developers to mitigate harm to tenants; what kind of resources to offer households (information and financial assistance); how to include affordable replacement units through zoning or developer incentives; and how to ensure existing residents have access to and can afford housing in new developments. d. Amend the citys existing density incentives to attract developers who can help the city 5 reach an appropriate blend of affordability in new developments, including rental and Approximately 28% of Renton households can't afford a 2 -bedroom apartment and 69% of Renton households cannot afford homeownership. Average 2 -bedroom apartment in Renton is $92 /month (Dupre & Scott 2009) or affordable to a household earning $41,000 annually, and approximately 28% of Renton households earn less than $40,000 (SSRI demographic data). Northwest MLS lists a medium home price In Renton as $314,825, requiring a household income of $91,000 to be affordable and roughly fig% of Renton households learn less than $90,000 per year. 2of 3 EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 homeownership,. Currently the city has.a density bonus for developers who.include . .. . affordable units in new developments. There are some constraints in the existing regulation 5 that may preclude a developer from using the incentive. The city might consider eliminating cont. the requirement that the incentives only apply to parcels that are a minimum of 2 acres, Also, the required affordability level is 50% AMI, and this affordability level may not be financially viable for developers. The city may want to consider a tiered affordability scale based on the number of total units. These changes may more adequately incentivize private _ developers to include a percentage of affordable units in their residential developments. In summary, HDC wants to acknowledge that the city of Renton has demonstrated clear efforts to support affordability in Renton, through its partnership with RHA, through its commitment to capital in its Housing Opportunity Fund, and in policies developed by its human services and planning departments. HDC wants to commend Renton for these accomplishments and hopes that these recommendations will be considered as additional tools that the city can use further its affordable housing goals. 3of 3 EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 January 25, 2011 Erika Conkling, A€CP Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Dear Ms, Conkling: RE: DEIS for Sunset Area Community Planned Action Thank you for the opportunity to review the Sunset Area Community Planned Action DEIS. Our comments are below. The City will need to check the available records of the dangerous waste generators, voluntary cleanup sites, underground storage tank sites, and confirmed and suspected contaminated sites list to see what types of confirmed and potential contamination exists in the subsurface soils and groundwater. If redevelopment in those areas requires soil excavation, there will be a need to test soils in the impacted areas for dangerous waste designation purposes. Disposal of contaminated soils will need to follow the dangerous waste regulations. If the soil is not dangerous waste, then at a minimum a disposal option should be identified that does not create a contaminated site and is protective of human health and the environment. IF you have questions regarding the above comments, please contact Rachel Best at (425) 649-7140 or Dean Yasuda at (425) 649-7264. Questions about the voluntary cleanup program should be directed to Russ Olsen at (425) 649 -7038 - Sincerely, J Alice Kelly Regional Planner Northwest Regional Office CC' Rachel Best, Department of Ecology Russ Olsen, Department of Ecology SEPA 201006374 EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 From: Erika.Conklinq Ta: Grueter, Lisa; Roger. Mason locH2M.corn; Subject: FW: Submittion of Statement on Sunset Area Community Planned Action Date: Friday, January 28, 20118:01:50 AM Attachments:SunsetAreaComrnLrityPlannedAction.docx Erika Conkling, AICP Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econkling@rentonwa.gov From: Linda C. Perrine[mailto:Linda.Perrine@accesstpa.com] Sent: Friday, January 28, 20117:22 AM To: Erika Conkling Cc: Linda C. Perrine Subject: Submittion of Statement on Sunset Area Community Planned Action Hello Erica: I have finally put together a letter stating some of the concerns on the development right next door to me. I hate this legal stuff and the uncertainty that this development makes me feel with my rental investment. Anyway, I am sending you a letter via post just to be formal about my concerns. But just to make sure you get it before the deadline on January 315t, I am attaching it in this email as well, Thank you for your time in explaining what you could to me. Linda Perrine 303 Seneca Ave NW Renton, WA 98057 Linda.Perrine@accesstpa.com DISCIATMER: The informa-:�ion in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibi7ed and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. Thank you EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 n January 27, 2011 City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Sunset Area Community Planned Action would like to submit my comments and questions regarding the Sunset Area Community Planned Action using this letter. am the owner of the property located at 1155-57 Glennwood Ave NE, Renton, WA 98057. This property is adjacent to the RHA owned property on Glennwood Ave NE, Renton, WA 98057. My father owns the property on the other side of the RHA and his property is 1133 Glennwood Ave NE. The RHA property between my father and I is mentioned frequently in the Sunset plan as being slated to be developed with high density housing. The current use of our properties are rentals which we try to keep in good repair and try to rent to responsible families. I have just lately moved from living in my rental and had lived it in for 15 years so I am quite attached to it still and my ties to this property are strong. This is our only rental properties that we own. We are not developers or business owners. My father is a retired person of 80 years old with modest to no income. I am single and have just purchased a house on the west side of Renton above the airport. I have tried my best to read and understand the over 400 pages of the EIS statement and I have several concerns regarding this project and the impact to our rental properties. The concerns that I will make below are purely on the development being planned on the RHA property between mine and my father's property. My comments also pertain to all alternatives because each of the 3 alternatives have a building(s) being built on this RHA property next to me and my father. They just vary in size and impact to me. To prevent me from rambling or repeating myself I would like to bullet point my comments and tell you why I have issues with it and then go on to the next issue and then close my letter. • The building(s) being built are not of the same type as the surrounding neighborhood. The current houses are duplexes with 1 family on each side of the duplex. So having a large building, and in some alternatives, a set of buildings with multiple floors and lots of families will not be in characterto the current neighborhood. l realize that the zoning allows for this, and fought tooth and nail against that re -zoning, and lost, of course. The zoning allows for building bonuses that are unreasonable to this neighborhood. These plans take advantage of that and they are building to the highest extent of that code. Again this high 2 density is not in line with the present housing type and I have never agreed with it. The zoning was in great opposition when it was put in place and now I am going to get it right next door to the highest level. It is unsuitable and will change the character to the property I bought. EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 • Glennwood Ave NE is one lane wide: Hardly wide enough to support parking and a right of way at the same time. And certainly not if cars park on both side of the street. It was never 3 intended to have a high density building on this street and the traffic that goes with it. The development plans are not planning on addressing this and ignore this fact entirely. The people who live on this street often park on the sidewalk as it is because parking a car on the street feels like you are actually in the right of way. • There is not enough parking to support the current residents so if the parking for these 4 building's happen to overflow onto Glennwood Ave from the planned parking lot, then they will take the parking of the current residents and the area will be less friendly to sustain my renters. As Families with children play in the street with bikes and other toys. This is a family area and not much traffic comes through so parents feel fairly safe with the kids outside riding bikes, trikes 5 and other activities. These kids are too young to allow walking to a park without parents. Often the parents are inside cooking etc. where going to the park is not possible so either the kids play right outside or not at all. The more traffic the less that play is possible and the more dangerous it becomes. •61 These new buildings will cast shade on our duplexes making them less attractive to live at: My renters can put sun chairs outside and enjoy the sun and a garden but these buildings will block light and the feel of openness will be lost and recoupable. 7 • The parking area in all of the alternatives will have 24 hours light will cast light inside our duplexes and our properties making it feel intrusive and commercial. • The attraction of a duplex is that you are not living in a commercial area: I have attracted many $ renters in the past because they don't want to live in a high residential area. I am now going to lose that as an attraction for a renter because I have high density housing right next door. • Increased traffic of strangers to the neighborhood: The increase of pedestrian traffic unknown 9 to my renters and neighbors will be unsettling and make my renters feel vulnerable. Another attraction of our duplexes are that we are off the beaten road so less traffic means a lower profile. These proposed buildings change that feel and expirence. in The turnover of the residents in these apartment buildings will be unsettling and will also make my renters feel vulnerable and I will lose the feeling of consistency and safety. • Increased noise: The noise of vehicles parking, starting, large garbage trucks (they come early in the morning), cars traveling too fast, people talking and interacting outside will increase and will be at inconvenient times of the day. I speak from reference because there is a 2 story apartment complex on Edmonds Ave and their parking lot shares a fence line with the back of my property. Even though that parking lot butts up to my fairly large back yard as is away from the actual living area in my duplex, I have a lot of noise from it. From car alarms, people working on their cars, people talking and/yelling, garbage trucks. You name it, it happens. Especially in lower rent areas where behaviors sometimes are not as neighborly or thoughtful. EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 • Garbage thrown over the fence onto my property: Again I speak from experience that garbage will be thrown from the new properties apartment building and parking area over the shared 12 fence onto my property. My experience that oil containers, soda cans to used drug needles are thrown over. I was able to combat that a little by creating a very tall tree barrier along my rear fence but I'm sure a 20 foot string of trees dividing my property and the RMA property is not going to be wanted and it is difficult for me to maintain. 131 • Construction activity will negatively impact our ability to rent and to retain current renters. The noise the dust the large machine activity. I am unable to determine from the alternatives what the building layout will actually be because 14 the current zoning code says that parking must be in behind the housing and in alternative 2 or 3 (1 can't remember) the parking lot is shown to be right off of Glennwood. How can I state my comments in whole when they don't even know what they are going to do? have listed several but not all of my concerns. I would like to have the ability to bring up issues as they 15 arise. I am also concerned that the RHA not having to submit EIS's on additional building projects as they go along because it would negate me being able to comment on them. I realize that it is easier and more cost effective for them but how will the public who will be impacted get any say? Thank you for your attention on this issue and please contact me if there are any questions or if further clarification is needed. Linda Perrine 306 Seneca Ave NW Renton, WA 98057 Linda.Perrine@Accesstpa.com EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 From: Erika Conkling 9 To: Grueter, Lisa; Roger.Mason@CH2M.corn; Subject: FW: DOI Comments - DEIS for HUD Sunset Area Community Planned Action Date: Friday, January 28, 20118:01:38 AM Attachments: ER10 1074 deis.odf Erika Conkling, AICP Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econkling@rentonwa.gov From: Mandy Stanford [mailto:m-stanford@gwestoffice.net] Sent: Thursday, January 27, 20114:23 PM To: Erika Conkling Cc: 'Allison O'Brien' Subject: DOI Comments - DEIS for HUD Sunset Area Community Planned Action Attached, please find the Department of the Interior's comments on the subject DEIS. Thank you, Mandy Mandy Stanford Regional Environmental Protection Assistant United States Department of the Interior 620 SW Main Street, Suite 201 Portland, OR 97205 Phone: (503) 326-2489 Fax: (503) 326-2494 EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 S� HT OF E91 o ' $ United States Department of the Interior TAKE RIDE* 4R a OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY «AMERICA Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 620 SW Main Street, Suite 201 Portland, Oregon 97205-3026 9043.1 rN REPLY REFER TO ER 10/ 1074 Electronically Filed January 27, 2011 Erika Conkling AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Dear Ms. Conkling: The Department of the Interior has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the HUD Sunset Area Community Planned Action, City of Renton, Washington. The Department does not have any comments to offer. — We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Allison O'Brien Acting Regional Environmental Officer EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 3316 NE 12"' Street Renton, WA 98056-3429 January 30, 2010 Erika Conkling, Senior Planner Alex Pietseh, Administrator and City of Renton Planning Commission City of Renton Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Dear City of Renton Officials, Page one of three This letter highlights my concerns concerning your plans for Renton's "Sunset Area" and associated environmental impact statement presented January 6, 2011 to the Renton Planning Commission. The Community and Economic Development section of Renton City government is intended "`to enhance economic development, vitality and livability." "Neighborhood revitalization" is an anticipated outcome. The words with quotes are taken directly from City of Renton web site. I have been a homeowner and resident of Renton Highlands "Sunset Area' for 45 years. In the past 15 years the "Sunset Area" has brought in numerous businesses. I have seen "economic development" take place in this area. I have seen the following: 1) Grocery Outlet revitalized the bowling alley building 2) Walgreens revitalized Jack's Drive In, Baskin & Robbins, Nutrition Store and gas station 3) Jewelry Exchange revitalized a bank 4) Pay Day revitalized a bank 5) St. Vincent DePaul moved into a prior Albertson's Grocery. 6) Good Will moved into prior Cosco drug store 7) Rite Aide built in area of small shop strip mall which housed a neighborhood restaurant 8) Mai Place Restaurant restored a building left vacant for years by a pizza shop 9) Tea Palace restored a building left vacant by a furniture store 10) Dollar Store moved into a closed -furniture store location 11) Vet-Wah Asian Market moved into a closed drug store and card shop 12) Ring Ring wireless added a contract US Post Office to its site on the corner of a strip mall which originally housed a real estate office. 13) Evergreen Terrace Retirement Center The City of Renton built a new fire station between the Renton library and Rite Aide. 2 This impacted a section of the Sunset Area with noise from sirens not previously impacted by this outrageous noise. Such noise impacts the sleep of those residences in the area of State Highway 900, Monroe Ave N., Edmonds Avenue and le Avenue North. The City of Renton recently transferred the Highlands library to King County following an election; the transfer passed by only 56 votes. This move has brought extreme crowded 3 conditions to the interior and exterior of this small community library. As stated by Erika Conkling, during the EIS presentation, King County Library has no current plans to build a new library. The comfortable library now crowded is a loss to Highlands's residents. 4 In 6 EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 Page two of three Renton School District revitalized McKnight Jr. High School and Highlands Elementary within the past few years. Recently also Kennydale Elementary was rebuilt. Now Honeydew Elementary is being renovated. What 1 see is fewer and fewer students walking on 12th Street to attend McKnight High School. I see large numbers of busses pulling out of the parking lot at McKnight delivering students elsewhere because the neighborhood schools are filled to capacity. There are numerous school busses on 4th Avenue and Highway 16 at certain times of the day delivering students elsewhere. The Renton Highlands Sunset Area "vitality and livability" has been fractured by the school crowding. Students who live within a one mile walk of a neighborhood school are now being bussed elsewhere. Adding another 479 residential housing units to the Renton Highlands Sunset Area will further impact `-vitality and livability" in this neighborhood. Do you know that students residing south of NE 12th Street are bussed to Renton High School in downtown Renton and to Demitt Jr. High in Skyway? Should not the schools be the hub for "vitality and livability" in a community? For over 15 year•the Highlands Shopping area (split in half by State Highway 900) has continued to serve the neighborhood with numerous restaurants namely; 1) Thai formerly Skippers 2) Plum Delicious formerly The Colliery 3) Peking Palace 4) LaFurente 5) Pho Soup This continuous economic development in the Renton Highlands increases the "vitality and livability" of the neighborhood. The low density residential dwellings in the Renton Sunset Area contribute to the "vitality and livability of the neighborhood. The City of Renton's proposal to add 479 high density dwellings to the Sunset Area will greatly impact the "vitality and livability" of the neighborhood. Crowding will be the result just like the current crowding brought to the neighborhood library. "Livability" means not having to drive round and round the block to find a place to park and then having to walk 1 or 2 blocks in the rain to arrive at a place of business. City of Renton officials need to.look at current residences within 1 mile of the proposed 479 low and medium income residences. Numerous residences within 1 mile of this proposed project a clearly low and medium income residences. Look at the numerous.2 bedroom cement block residences near the Renton Vocational School and the two bedroom residences in the Windsor area above Sunset Blvd. and the modest and run down residences on NE 12th Street and modest apartments on 12th Street and 1 block south of 1e Street. The Renton Sunset Area is already riddled with low income and modest income residences. Numerous low income residences are owned by private investors. I've been told one private investor owns one square block of WWII duplexes next to McKnight High School. My question to the City of Renton Officials is this "Does the Renton Sunset Area Highlands really need more low and modest income residential dwellings?" Do persons of low and medium income prefer high density living in an area of 479 residential housing units? Does 479 unit high density family housing facilitate "vitality and livability"? Previously, the schools were the hub for "vitality and livability" in this community. How much additional noise, bus 7T and auto traffic do you project from the increased population to the Sunset Area by 479 7 EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 Cont. Page three of three residences? How much additional crime will this 479 unit high density housing bring to the Renton Highlands Sunset Area? The December Renton burglary report for the Northeast 8 area adjacent to the Renton Highlands Sunset Area showed 9 burglaries, more burglaries than 4 other sections of the city. Burglaries and auto theft is currently a problem in the Renton Highlands and certainly this impacts the `Lvitality and livability" of a community. City of Renton Officials, Have you looked at what happened to the Kent Schools following increased low and modest income high density housing? Do you know parents of Kent students speak over 90 languages? What is this impact on "vitality and livability" in a community when there is no common language? Have you looked at the crime associated with low and modest income high density housing? Have you considered the rush of 9 developers making proposals for increasing the housing density in the Highlands Sunset Area following the 479 Renton Housing Authority developments? What will happen to the vitality and livability"? Would you want to live in such a community? Have you considered that the Highlands Sunset Area has a "vitality and livability" today because .it is a low density housing area of low and medium income? Have you seriously considered housing needs of persons over age 55 or 65 and the lesser impact on the neighborhood schools and neighborhood traffic? I experienced first hand a developer that took legal action on the residents of my street in an attempt to break our King County registered covenants. Developers are looking for areas to 10 develop for profit. The neighborhood is left with the result which impacts "vitality and livability". City of Renton Officials, please protect the Renton Highlands from high density developers who can change the face and environment of the Highlands Community forever. 1n closing, I have seen neighborhood revitalization in the Renton Highlands Sunset area within the past 15 years and continuing to the present time. The economic development contributions have increased the livability and vitality of the area. The housing boom east of the Renton Highlands has seriously impacted the neighborhood schools in the Renton 11 Highlands Sunset area. Today is not the time to increase low income and medium income family housing in the Renton Highlands Sunset. This area already has a high percentage of low income and medium income housing at the present time. The comfortable quiet library is now crowded with King County citizens previously a Renton citizen benefit. Please act to protect the recent economic development, the vitality, livability and neighborhood revitalization that's currently making Renton Highlands an affordable choice for family and senior citizen living. Please act to eliminate the criminal element in the Renton Highlands. Sincerely, CLQ Kathleen Ossenkop EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 From: Grueter, Lisa To: Bendixen, Carmen: Subject: FW: Sunset Area Planned Action Comments Date: Monday, January 31, 2011 1:02:42 PM Another one... From: Erika Conkling [mailto:EConkling@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 1:02 PM To: Grueter, Lisa; Roger.Mason@CH2M.com Subject: FW: Sunset Area Planned Action Comments Erika Conkling, AICP Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econkling@rentonwa.gov From: Mylarsen [mailto:mylarsen@aol.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 12.39 PM To: Erika Conkling Subject: Sunset Area Planned Action Comments I reviewed the binder explaining the various redevelopment proposals for the Sunset area. My observations are: 1 The Highlands Library definitely needs a larger facility. The public computer stations need to.be increased. The layout of the Highlands retail spaces, and ingress and egress, are jumbled and need to be redefined. The Harrington Square Apts staff were hoping to rent 52 units by 12131/10. Instead, 3 they rented over 100 units. There is a definite demand for more and better housing in the area. 4 With the "graying of America," the Highlands could benefit from having dedicated senior citizen housing. EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2411- LUA 10-052 The children of Sunset Terrace need the community facilities area, so that they have another place to play and congregate, other than in the street. The increase in mixed -income units would benefit both the library expansion and the new retail space. 7 1 The traffic corridor along Sunset needs to be enhanced to better protect the pedestrian. Adding trees and plants would help. Let's put Renton into the group of "intelligent cities" by proceeding with the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Plan #3. Keep up the good work, Erika! Myrne Larsen 950 Harrington NE, N306 (formerly lived 20 years in Lower Kennydale) Renton, WA 98056-3125 425-442-2641 EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 9 From: Grueter, Lisa To: Bendixen, Carmen, Subject: FW: Sunset Area Community Planned Action, LUA10-052. Draft NEPA/ SEPA Environmental Impact Statement Date: Monday, January 31, 20114:07:09 PM Attachments: RTabor-Seattle-mtq-12-08-2010[11.cdf Another one From: Erika Conkling [mailto:EConkling@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Monday, January 31, 20114:02 PM To: Grueter, Lisa; Roger.Mason@CH2M.com Subject: FW: Sunset Area Community Planned Action, LUA10-052. Draft NEPA/ SEPA Environmental Impact Statement Erika Conkling, AICP Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econkling@rentonwa,gov From: Karen Walter[mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Monday, January 31, 20114:00 PM To: Erika Conkling Subject: Sunset Area Community Planned Action, LUA10-052. Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement Ms. Conkling, The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the above referenced project. We offer the following comments in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe's treaty protected fisheries resources. 1. As noted in the DEIS, 243 acres of the proposed redeveloped area (from a total of 269 acres in the Planned Action Study Area) drain to Johns Creek, a tributary to Lake Washington. Weare concerned that the DEIS did not adequately address potential impacts to Johns Creek and salmon that use it, in particularly juvenile chinook (see attached PDF). Nowhere in the DEIS does it mention salmon use in Johns Creek and the potential for stormwater EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 discharges to adversely salmon in Johns Creek. In fact, the DEIS states (on page 3.4-1), "stormwater originating from most of the Planned Action Study 1 Area enters the City storm sewer system and has no potential to affects cont. Plants or animals." Furthermore, the DEIS states (page 3.4-3), "No aquatic habitat has been identified within the Planned Action Study Area, but aquatic habitat does occur in the form of streams in Honey Creek and May Creek, which receive stormwater from portions of the Planned Action Study Area." Again, Johns Creek is not mentioned in this section or adequately assessed for potential impacts to juvenile salmon in Johns Creek from stormwater discharges (both quantity and quality. The FEIS needs to provide additional information and analysis to address this concern. - 2. We are concerned that stormwater discharges as a result of projects implemented under this DEIS (regardless of alternative chosen) could further degrade habitat conditions for juvenile salmon in Johns Creek. Per the DEIS, Johns Creek is a flow -control -exempt water body (page 3.3-1). As a result, stormwater detention is not required for projects discharging stormwater to Johns Creek. As noted in the attached PDF, Johns Creek is providing important non -natal habitat for juvenile chinook. Juvenile salmon can be flushed out of streams as a result of stormwater discharges that occur from 2 both increases in peak flows as well as longer durations of higher flows that create flushing conditions and flow conditions that exceed juvenile salmon's abilities to maintain positions. Per the DEIS, it appears that City may require additional flow control within the Johns Creek Basin to match peak flow rates under existing conditions. This approach will not address increases in water flow durations and will likely result in adverse impacts to juvenile salmon in Johns Creek that could potentially be avoided. Instead, we recommend that the projects within Johns Creek basin be required to comply with the more stringent Flow Control Duration Standard as required for May and Honey Creek basins to protect juvenile salmon and low velocity -- habitat in Johns Creek. 3. We also recommend that all projects developed and redeveloped under this proposal, regardless of the chosen alternative, maximize the use of low impact development techniques to better manage stormwater discharges and stormwater water quality and reduce potential impacts to improve 3 downstream receiving water conditions. Low impact development techniques include a variety of measures, including but not limited to, the treatment and infiltration of stormwater to reduce stormwater impacts generated at the developed site. A full suite of low impact development techniques should be considered to minimize stormwater impacts and maximize mitigation throughout the planned action study area. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal and its associated DEIS. Please let me know if you have any questions. EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries division 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 t: L U) LL N a � 4-0 � L L (Q L N o L (D _ 0} CL VJ N N O zv C� U M�> L Cc co L m co cn U) U) U) Cn -- J W 00 Z J CO W W C: — m 0 a p ccm OL L VVV 0 2> 4�i J o— `n too N �' N > j J o o 2E Cc D >, o m L cc E a) c v m o M ai A M L == : = a) v o Q Z U Y I ❑ F- IL H- N N )o c L C� Q� 6 L 0 0 Q x o c U ❑❑❑ W E 72 � cu E o o o= o� as U U3 m W U) m= w w w 2 c� w U) I 4 H ' � o s 4 p a .0 I O y D s ._ O ,, Q M LL L � ❑ ..... � I.LI 4 U) F- 0 o s canesE o _ 22) LV p C CL .tam L O �� c i ❑ a(D -0# ACO O M n =3 I 4 H ' � o s I p a .0 I O y D s ._ O ,, Q M ■CL 0 Lm 0 o L vw r CL ._ low i •0 0 I ram }� � •— ■_ E >�con c� cu 0 a� a 0 � E-�0E E 0 0 0 o 4w 2 E ❑ ❑ V V 0 �C 0 0 V lid 0 0 r t� rC L .- E 0 CA a LMm 0. cn 0 E N 0 E J9 0 0 N N cn,- 0 J m L m VJ 0 i o m .� >C/) 0E -0 4-0 O v _0 C: C: C: 4— CZC:m � O a) . 04-0m _0 -1-4._ r rrrrr cn >C) _ Ca � O � � N E cn a) 0L LO cn -�e ■ Co -0 =; Co 4)� C J C!) C6 C6 �, c C: .., O cn U) W O CD _ .� I .s c f v) LO co co 00 CD O O > O > O O O L O NN N N O O O O O O CO O� O� N I N N N 0 LL I 0 c :11 P] .y m i 0 ANAN d J � � R CO L Y Lake Washington L C3 Cr E� 0 ■ i E fu L m uoi leafiiW c m 0 0 C: wC: 0 4—a !E U) CQ au • w %7% �:g (n -4--p 0 E V � L ry L- m T co E I 4-4 CD ..rte A cr co 0 0 0 UL N N .� u a7 (D 4 4w a o . 04 c CL N a LM Lm LL LL �E 0 U Q N D mej .U) r� U r � U m 0 E m 7D m cn U rW . 0 W ^m W cm .CD m 0 a� E w . . CCS 1 O z r 9 70-..j t d D Q.% a U ov w W LO'19t M N o 0 0 o c o 0 o v o (w) y}dap ueaW 1 0 �. cry �t ca z E �a %piffa-1 CL L T p � N 0 0 i c L. CL Nei( r O O O O (D) Al!A113918S H ■ O M Q N N O 4-0 -� Mgt M i m LL J ma O O N LO i�� LO CU L 21 1 N L Z 0 4a 0 0 � 1 0 0 ko Al i to LO q�r m 6 6 6 6 1 I 1 I I I l I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I L 3 0 :.e Q) Q 0 U r— N Co r (D II � Z II z V L LL d Q (Q U. lqr m CV T Q Q O O O O C Y I I I I m I I I L I � Z) 1 0 I 1 1 m 1 I 1 � I I � I I I f0� V Q (Q U. lqr m CV T Q Q O O O O C Q as L- 0 0 E L - CID 0 z r a0 CD N C3 o c o C; CL Too r co to er N o 6 6 o (p) pini43ajag L- 0 O E 0 z QL co i -- CDL Q E 0o to 14 ry o 0 0 o 6 Cl a LO 0 L s (� 00 CDN ■2 � N LIM 4-0 o Q L a p Alma _ "' N L CQ s L O O Q N O L � L1.. N � L ME M ■ IMM. L N C 00 w N T T U OU 1 )I4OU143 # f cn r C L , L' 66) n O f I � AL cn r0: 3 4 ,. � a - dl r 4 . 'kms L CL a L CD Y N T- 1% % tp H I,y 0 o� co � s WOu!uD 10 # 0 o O C O c O co to q N T- NOOUIu:D 10 # qo 0�o ri 74 9 Lm MCI. K 10 2 Mo;" luo u CN Ln v �- v z W 1)IoouiuO � In � N c In )Ioouiyo jo aogwnN X � D O Qy r rr-- � I I Lo o co x �L �L CQ Ln C7 N r O ro 0 0 0 0 0 w )IooU1u0 E El AW w Ll C� C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q CD M � N N O )Ioouigo jo jagwnN aD LL EXHIBk 1 ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 LL P A .i cy co co N v 0 0 0 0 zw l MaouiyD L ca m T- m �J L m L r �mm■� Era 4a m r 0 z C) Ln I 0 0 0 0 Moouit{o jo aagwnN U 0 E O co CQ � NN IU03JOd 0 r r0 00 .� 0 .m U ■ _ L m a L U a � L .� CL a °' � L U C CL M >1 .�d M a E as U C� s — CD 0 .� 3 CD MM) M. • 0 s or 7 EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 9$101-3140 �c OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS, TRIBAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS January 31, 2011 Erika Conkling, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Re: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 Continents on the Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) (EPA Project Number: 10 -051 -HUD) Dear Ms. Conkliag: The EPA has reviewed the Sunset Area Community Planned Action DEIS. We are submitting comments in accordance with our responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. Under our policies and procedures, we evaluate the environmental impact of the proposed action and the adequacy of the impact statement. We have assigned an Environmental Concerns - Adequate (EC -1) rating to the DEIS. A copy.of the EPA rating system is enclosed. We appreciate the City of Renton's efforts to lay the foundation for the redevelopment of Sunset Terrace into a healthy, livable, affordable, viable and green community. Your approach appears well suited to leveraging investment into an existing community and is generally consistent with the HUD -DOT -EPA Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities' (Partnership) six livability principles.' We also note your substantial NEPA analysis. The DEIS addresses all of our scoping comments. Our EC -1 rating is based on our concern that mitigation goals are not sufficiently linked to a monitoring plan or program. Our suggested corrective measures focus on the combination of and linkages between mitigation measures and sustainability features, and, monitoring their 1 implementation and effectiveness. The targets and decision thresholds of a monitoring plan or program are a key part of ensuring that the predicted environmental impacts are achieved and the objectives of the proposal are met. This is especially true for a project involving such a large group of diverse stakeholders with real estate and other transactions over a long period of time. In addition to our enclosed comments, which focus on mitigation and monitoring, we 1 hup,//e�sa Fav/dced/partnership!index.html GAU"anP^MW EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- Lt_1A 10-052 recommend you review and consider the Council on Environmental Quality's recent Final Guidance on the Appropriate Use of Mitigation anis 1• onitoring.2 We would like to thank you for this opportunity to comment and also for the time YOU have spent communicating directly with us and the public on the Pro-jeci. The City's substantial efforts are apparent in the quality and forward thinking nature of your proposal. If you have any questions or concerns please contact Erik Peterson of my staff at (206) 553-6382 or by electronic mail at petersim_enk@ epa.ga- . You may contact me at (206) 553-1601. Sincerely, Christine B. Reichgott, Unit Mana=ger Environmental Review and Sediment Management Unit Enclosures: EPA Detailed Comments on the Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement EPA Rating System for Draft Environmental .Impact Statements 2 hit pJA%'AuuhitchOu.4I'n%hiIes!=1ztauI(ItIC,micr,-sitc>«'ilMI11r20t4'i,'?€}11Ci'-()%1iti^iwI.n`.-loaridl% 2t}(.�fii=1ani3t aAdnred on RocyeW PAsw 2 3 EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 3 EPA DETAILED CONI MENTS ON THE SUNSET AREA COMMUNITY PLANNED ACTION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Sustainability Features and the Environmentally Preferred Alternative In our scoping comments we noted that the, "...environmental impacts of the pro�ect may be as much a function of planning concepts3 and design guidelines/ mitigation measures as it is a function of the intensity and density of redevelopment (number of units, square footage of office and retail and acreage of open space)." The DEIS has incorporated this concept into the analysis. For example, although the number of redeveloped properties, size of roofs and width of right of way for Sunset Boulevard all increase the most under Alternative 3, the relatively increased Low Impact Development (LID) practices (green connections, rain gardens, cisterns, etc.) sufficiently compensate (DEIS, p. 4.6-7). However, in the case of impacts to plants and animals, project design and mitigation measures (mainly LID practices) are not sufficient to compensate for Alternative 3's increased density (DEIS, p. 4.4-4). Conclusions such as the two noted above are responsive to our scoping comment that the Project's environmental impacts are influenced by the degree and also the nature of redevelopment. Now, with an overall adequate NEPA analysis, we believe the City is well suited to identify, or develop and identify the environmentally preferred alternative. According to the Council on Environmental Quality, "The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's Section 101."5 As projects such as Sunset Terrace that are focused on sustainability move forward, we would note and remember that the NEPA Statute language, written more than thirty years ago, still provides valuable guidance for contemporary decision making. NEPA Section 101 states that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government, "...to use all practicable means ... to the end that the Nation may -- 1. fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; 2. assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; 3. attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; 4. preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice; 5. achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and 6. enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources." 3 Building height and massing, open space, topography, connections/ edges, circulation, tend use. 4 Opportunities for infrastructure, energy and transportation needs with respect to greatest possible efficiency 5 htti2://cRqhss.dgcc.Soyinepatmos/40/1-10. #b O1 NOW4W R 0+1 Flyer 3 cont 0 EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 4 EPA believes the environmentally preferred alternative (the alternative that promotes the national environmental policy) for this project is likely the alternative which incorporates the maximum extent of implementable features consistent with the current state of science regarding quality urban design, sustainable urban redevelopment, and livability principles 6 . We refer to these features as "sustainability features". Within the DEIS, sustainability features are both elements of the action alternatives and mitigation measures. Below, we list the sustainability features found within and outside of the DEIS, which we believe may be especially consistent with an environmentally preferred alternative. The maximum extent of sustainability features for this project (not necessarily the maximum extent of potentially implementable sustainability features) likely includes (i) all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and commitments; (ii) all or most of the features common to both alternatives -2 and 3 as well as all of the mitigation measures already committed to in DEIS section 1.6; (iii) many of the elements limited to Alternative 3 and some of the elements limited to Alternative 2; (iv) numerous potential mitigation measures described throughout the DEIS; and, (v) some potential sustainability features not addressed within the DEIS. We assume that all of the regulatory commitments and features relating to points (i) and (ii) will be carried through the Record of Decision. Our perspective on points (iii), (iv) and (v) are described below. With regard to features limited to alternatives 2 or 3 (point (iii)), we'recommend the following be carried forward - or seriously considered - as elements of a potential environmentally preferred alternative or as elements common to all alternatives. • pedestrian supportive signals • narrow lanes to reduce crossing distances • realign skewed intersections and reduce crosswalk distances • widen sidewalks to meet complete streets minimums (8 ft sidewalks and 8 ft. landscape strips) • plant new street traces in landscape strip along corridor • use special paving within intersections • special concrete bus pad in roadway at transit stops • new local transit service connecting across SR900 to Community Center/Library • require green stormwater infrastructure including non -infiltrating practices • green parking lot standards • rainwater harvesting • bioretention planters with detention • pursuit of the family village concept With regard to potential mitigation measures described throughout the DEIS (point (iv)), we recommend the following be carried forward - or seriously considered - 5 as elements of a potential environmentally preferred alternative or as elements common to all alternatives. 6 httnll ga.goy/smarter 2abZ nershipolivabilitvprinciples Oftoodw rey, PMPW 5 cont no EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 5 a From section 1.6 and elsewhere in the DEIS o pursue maximum implementation of Breathe Easy Homes" air quality features, including, but not limited to: ■ use of low VOC building materials and coatings ■ pursue enhanced building ventilation and room air filtration a install dust -free floor materials and low -pile carpeting to reduce dust build-up o require future developers to pursue a specific energy conservation approach/ standard(s) (E.g., Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers Advanced Buildings Core Performance Guide, Architecture 2030) o require adequate noise mitigation to ensure compliance with the City's noise ordinance o establish a local preference for rental assistance o plan for public seating, art in public spaces, and, secure bicycle storage o develop and commit to a plan to address recreation facility level of service deficiencies o develop new affordable housing prior to demolishing Sunset Terrace public housing a From Table 4.2-8. Potential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures. o incorporate on-site renewable energy production o energy efficient street lighting o green roofs, high/albedo roofing o eliminate or reduce use of refrigerants in HVAC systems o use water conserving fixtures that surpass building code requirements o encourage or require water reuse o recycle and use recycled demolition and construction materials o use local building materials o size parking capacity to not exceed local parking requirements and, where possible, seek reductions in parking supply through special permits or waivers o encourage or require bicycle storage and showers/ changing rooms With regard to sustainability features not listed in the DEIS (point (v)), we recommend the following be seriously considered as elements of a potential environmentally preferred alternative or as elements common to all alternatives. 7 • Additional construction emission control measures from EPA's compilation of language used in contracts, codes, laws, rules and other measures for addressing air quality issues, particularly diesel emissions, from construction equipment and other diesel sources.$ The Northeast Diesel Collaborative Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects - Model Contract Specification may be particularly useful.9 7 http:/I=Ulchoasing.org/ndeveiopuwnt/high-pointlbreathe-easy/ a http:/Iwww.cpa.gov/otaq/diesel/consmxtion/conumet-lang.htm g http://www.epa.gov/otag/diesel/construction/documents/el-roede-model.pdf *r+*2ftd0nafeJdObdPAP1V 7 cant. 8 31 EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 P • Mid -block connection requirement to facilitate informal pedestrian connections (do not develop super blocks). • Development of a Transportation Management District to hand parking and to manage mobility programs required on the site. • Size community gardens according to criteria adopted by the City of Vancouver, B.C. Their guidelines state that 30% of the housing units should have access to garden plots that are a minimum of 3' by 8'." Recommendation: While we believe the features listed above are especially consistent with NEPA Section 101, we recognize that implementing certain features may involve trade-offs. To address trade-offs, optimize funding strategies, and, maximize the extent of environmental benefits, we recommend that the City of Renton develop, utilize, describe and disclose in the FEIS, the results of a systematic analytical process to determine the maximum combination of implementable sustainability features. The results of this analysis should inform the identification of the environmentally preferable alternative. The results may also help to identify specific monitoring thresholds (see "Monitoring" below). The Seattle Housing Authority's Yesler Terrace Sustainable District Study may be a useful example. Monitoring In our scoping comments we stated, "...monitoring associated with the overall redevelopment effort is an opportunity to both learn about and learn from livability measures and tools. Efforts to benchmark existing conditions; develop tools to measure progress towards achieving community visions; and, increase the accountability of engaging in sustainable redevelopment may help to (i) move the national dialogue on livability measures forward, and, (ii) effectively measure the performance of your efforts." DEIS Appendix C Section 4 A and B address our comment by noting that monitoring will occur and that, based on this monitoring, the City may propose amendments to the Planned Action Ordinance and/or may supplement or revise the Planned Action EIS. In order to best facilitate this monitoring and adaptive management we believe the FEIS should include additional clarifying information for both mitigation (see above) and monitoring (see recommendations below). Recommendadon: • We recommend that mitigation measures and sustainability features be specific and quantitative wherever possible, e.g., "PM Peak Hour Trips". Phrases such as 10 "encourage" and/or "could" should be minimized in favor of specific targets and decision thresholds. 10 Source: Yesler Terrace Sustainable District Study - http:/lwww.seattlehousing.orgh 4kvelopmenttpdM--Sustainable—District_Study.pd€ opdabdoel ,3,18 pow EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 6 10 • We recommend the Planned Action Ordinance's Exhibit B contain sufficient cone information to serve as a stand-alone document. References to the FEIS and ROD should be limited to where additional explanation is needed, specific targets and decision thresholds should be represented directly within Exhibit B. a We recommend the FEIS incorporate and differentiate between implementation and effectiveness monitoring. For example, for greenhouse gas emissions, concurrence with the "trip bank" would be implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring would be establishing whether or not the selected alternative's predicted GHG reduction occurred ("...a net reduction of 4,164 metric tons/year. (DEIS, p. 140)). For stormwater, the development (or implementation) of a drainage master plan would be implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring could be establishing whether or not estimated reductions in pollution -generating impervious area within the Planned Action Study Area occurred (40.5 acres for alternatives 2 and 3). Environmental performance type effectiveness monitoring could entail runoff volume/ flow measurements, basin cleanout measurements and/or chemical analyses. Predicted impacts — such as the GHG and impervious surface reductions referenced above - are disclosed throughout the DEIS and could inform mitigation targets/ effectiveness monitoring thresholds. Other opportunities for mitigation targets/ effectiveness monitoring thresholds could be informed by third party certifications — such as, Greenroads and LEER ND. All implementation and effectiveness monitoring should be designed to facilitate adaptive management. Section 4 (B) of the Draft Planned Action Ordinance (DEIS, Appendix C) both requires adaptive management and provides a timeframe. `"this Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed no later than five years from its effective date by the Environmental Review Committee to determine the continuing relevance of its assumptions and findings with respect to environmental conditions in the Planned Action area, the impacts of development, and required mitigation measures. Based upon this review, the City may propose amendments to this ordinance and/or may supplement or revise the Planned Action EIS." (DEIS, Volume U, Appendix C, p. 8) Facilitating the usefulness of Section 4 (B), as well as Exhibit (B) (See mitigation comments), should be a primary focus of FEIS revisions and additions. QCT EXHIBIT 1- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rating System for Draft Environmental Impact Statements Definitions and Follow -Up Action* Enviromental Im=t or the Action LO -- Lack of Objections The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review has not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal. EC — Environmental Concerns EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of nutigadon measures that can reduce these impacts. EO — Environmental Objections EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to provide adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no -action alternative or a new alternative). EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. EU •- Environmentally Unsatisfactory EFA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potential unsatisfactory impacts are not connected at the final EIS stage, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Category 1-- Adequate EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative and those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action, No further analysis of data collection is necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information. Category 2 — Insufficient Inrormation The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternatives that are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional information, data, analyses or discussion should be included in the final EIS. Category 3 — Inadequate EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of the action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are of such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ. * From EPA Manual 1640 Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions Impacting the Environment. February, 1987 Oft saPOW EXHIBIT 2- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 1CF INTERNATIONAL Memorandum Date: February 2, 2011 To: Erika Conkling, Senior Planner, City of Renton Cc: Roger Mason, CH2MHi11 From: Lisa Grueter Senior Planner, ICF Subject: Sunset Area Community Draft EIS: Preliminary Responses to Comments The purpose of this memo is to provide a preliminary set of responses to comments received on the Draft EIS and identify for the Environmental Review Committee the nature of the comments and the directions of our responses. As we prepare the Final EIS, we will be putting together more detailed responses in some cases. Under separate cover we begin to outline the features of a preferred alternative developed with the direction of the Interdepartmental Team in January 2011. 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550 � Seattle, WA 98104 w— 205.801.2800 � 205.801.2899 fax . i0i.com EXHIBIT 2- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 Sunset Area Community Draft EIS: Preliminary Responses to Comments February 2, 2011 Page 2 of 12 Public Comments 1 December 29, King County Metro Transit, Gary Kriedt 2010 2 December 30, Washington State Department of Archaeology & Historic 2010 Preservation, Gretchen Kaehler 3 January 4, 2011 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region X, PHRS- Facilities Management, Ryan Mielcarek 4 January 5, 2011 Draft Renton Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5 January 5, 2011 Lori McFarland 6 January 5, 2011 Housing Development Consortium- King County, Karen Williams 7 January 25, Washington State Department of Ecology, Alice Kelly 2011 8 January 27, Linda Perrine 2011 9 January 27, U.S. Department of the Interior, Allison O'Brien 2011 10 January 30, Kathleen Ossenkop 2011 11 January 31, Myrne Larsen 2011 12 January 31, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division, Karen Walter 2011 13 January 31, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Christine 2011 B. Reichgott Responses to Comments The responses listed in Table 2 are numbered to correspond to the numbers shown in the left margin of the comment letters. Comments that state an opinion or preference are acknowledged with a response that indicates the comment is noted. These comments will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers as part of the Final EIS. Comments that ask questions, request EXHIBIT 2- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 Sunset Area Community Draft EIS: Preliminary Responses to Comments February 2, 2011 Page 3 of 12 clarifications, propose corrections, or are related to the Draft EIS are provided a response which explains the approach, offers corrections, or provides other appropriate replies. Table 2. Responses to Comments 1 1 Transit Service: The comment describes current transit service. Draft EIS Section 3.14 describes current transit service, but does not address Route 908 referenced in the comment. A description of Route 908 will be added to the Final EIS as a clarification/correction. 1-2 Bus Stop Improvement Request: A particular bus stop is requested to be brought to standard. Draft EIS Section 4.14 indicates under Alternatives 2 and 3, "ta]ll bus stops within the Planned Action Study Area will be upgraded to meet ADA accessibility requirements." This feature is expected to be part of the Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS as well. `I:et erg � etre � h1 t'� fd as �ngtratz tats epartimenl # Ar iaeol J 9 c!,P- seruat ortf w ...... 2-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Remains -- Authorities to Contact: An edit will be made to the cultural resources report to clarify that both local law enforcement and the King County Coroner must be notified if remains are found. 2-2 Non -Forensic Remains —DAHP Jurisdiction: An edit will be made to the cultural resources report to clarify that DHAP will take jurisdiction over non -forensic remains. y �m LeEter el�r�'Xlkl;,Re ani, PHi 61•aizlas [ra errt 3-1 Concerning the Opening of Windows: We are reviewing the referenced HUD Noise Guidebook and will provide in the Final EIS some follow up analysis of standard construction materials that supports a performance standard to reduce interior noise levels to achieve the HUD standard of 45 dBA. We will document the criteria are met with regard to "resident choice" as referenced in the comment. 3-2 Concerning the Space between Sunset Road and the Multifamily Structures: In the preferred alternative to be studied in the Final EIS we are considering the building layouts and the location of exterior gathering spaces in relation to NE Sunset Boulevard. 3-3 Other Thoughts: The suggestion for non -motorized connections throughout the Sunset Terrace streetscape is under consideration with the preferred alternative and will be addressed in the Final EIS. EXHIBIT 2- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 Sunset Area Community Draft EIS: Preliminary Responses to Comments February 2, 2011 Page 4 of 12 4-1 Linda Perinne, Property Owner, Jobs Clarification and Stormwater Improvements: The Draft EIS identifies new permanent jobs, not relating to the construction or development of the project. Regarding stormwater, when new buildings are built, the developer needs to comply with the necessary improvements. 4-2 Howard McComber, Highlands Community Association President, Greenway Drainage and Additional Flight -of -Way, Avoid Eminent Domain. Draft EIS Alternatives 2 and 3 include rain gardens or swales that are in the right of way, requiring an 8 -foot planting strip, where a low impact development style stormwater vault can be installed. In many cases, the rights of way are very large. There are areas along NE Sunset Blvd that may need additional right of way; however, fair market value will be negotiated with the property owner if right of way is needed. 4-3 Sandel DeMastus, Highlands Community Association Vice President, Ensure Senior and Disabled are Taken Care Of: The Draft EIS Alternatives, and the preferred alternative under preparation, include new senior housing and a PACE facility that address the needs of the frail elderly. 4-4 Angie Pretty, Housing Affordability and School District Impacts: The City has been coordinating with the Renton School District through this process. The Draft EIS evaluates school impacts in Sections 3.16 and 4.16. 4-5 Kathleen Ossenkop, Property Owner, Concern regarding addition of 500 Units of Housing and Impacts to Residents: The Draft EIS identifies potential impacts of additional jobs and housing in the Planned Action Study Area and the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area and proposes mitigation measures to reduce identified impacts. 4-6 Karen Williams, Housing Development Consortium of King County, Appreciate Plan, Ensure Gentrification does not Remove Private Affordable Housing. The comments are noted and are being considered by city decision -makers. Also see responses to specific comments with Letter 6. 4-7 Lori McFarland, Property Owner, Supports Transportation Improvements particularly Alternative 3: The preferred alternative incorporates many elements of Alternative 3 and will be addressed in the Final EIS. 4-8 Jim Houghton, Property Owner, Developing a Condominium for Seniors, Renton should be part of ARCH: A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) generally serves King County and east King County. The City could contact ARCH and determine if membership is a possibility and if it is beneficial to the City to participate. - ' „: 'A€ € i€ill` ti ENT f iE , C2r ': OIi C r Xis r E€ _€ .__ Ei,,.. ,,. Signals Preference for Alternative 3 and Interconnection of Si eSunset.,..... . 5-1 g on NE Boulevard: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. The preferred alternative incorporates many elements of Alternative 3 and will be addressed in the Final EIS. 5-2 In Favor of Incentives for Re -development to Prevent Continued Decay: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Draft EIS Alternatives 2 and 3 assume public investment as an incentive to private redevelopment, and this concept will be carried forward in the preferred alternative. EXHIBIT 2- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 Sunset Area Community Draft E15: Preliminary Responses to Comments F=ebruary 2, 2011 Page 5 of 12 5-3 Create Pedestrian Improvements that are Accessible per ADAAG: All action alternatives include pedestrian improvements and are intended to meet accessibility guidelines. 5-4 Favor BAT Lanes: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. The preferred alternative incorporates many elements of Alternative 3 and will be addressed in the Final EIS. S-5 Enjoy Diversity in Renton: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Iwetter RaE :'XAr f1LamS,' HouStn Ilevglo 171e F 9[tSO l iEs €i I �f ;It€ 6-1 Gentrification and Non -RHA Affordable Housing: The Draft EIS proposes mitigation measures to address potential loss of affordable housing in Section 4.10.2.1 including funding programs and a local preference for rental assistance. 6-2 Gather information on Private Market Housing. The City may consider collecting this information when it next updates its Housing Element per the Growth Management Act (the current deadline is December 2014). 6-3 Engage Non -Profit Housing Providers: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. 6-4 Apply Best Practices in Community Redevelopment Experiences: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. The City codes do include zoning or developer incentives. 6-5 Amend Existing Density Incentives — Lesser Acreage Minimum and Scaled Incentives: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. _... - ....:.. .Letter 'k Aftce iCeiC r, Wa en tg on State 17 parE h 7-1 Contaminated Site Records: We believe the Draft EIS covers the environmental health topics, and we will confirm this as we prepare the Final EIS. 8-1 Concern over Scale and Type of Buildings on Edmonds -Glenwood Site: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Draft EIS Alternatives 1 and 2 propose townhomes facing Glenwood Avenue NE to better match the scale of attached dwellings on Glenwood Avenue NE and propose multifamily facing Edmonds Avenue NE where larger scale buildings are found. Alternative 3 proposes a single multifamily building. The preferred alternative is likely to include the combined townhome/flat concept of Draft EIS Alternatives 1 and 2 which provides a more consistent development pattern with the neighborhood. EXHIBIT 2- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 Sunset Area Community Draft EIS: Preliminary Responses to Comments February 2, 2011 Page 6of12 8-2 Zoning Allows Building Bonuses Unreasonable to the Neighborhood: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Please note that the City is implementing zoning that was approved in 2007 after obtaining input from a task force and residents (see Draft EIS page 2-10). Also it should be noted that the proposals do not achieve the full maximums allowed by zoning: • The R-14 zone allows a maximum of 14-18 du/ac with opportunities to go to 30 du/ac for public housing. However, Draft EIS Alternatives 1 and 2 and the preferred alternative propose 8 townhouse units on 0.65 acres along Glenwood Avenue NE, which achieves less at about 12 du/ac. • Similarly the property to contain 82 flats along Edmonds Avenue NE is zoned Center Village allowing up to 80 du/ac per code, but Draft EIS Alternatives 1 and 2 and the preferred alternative achieve instead 48 du/ac. 8-3 Glenwood is One -Lane Wide - Not Capable of Handling High Density: The Draft EIS reviews city level of service standards in 3.14/4.14, and City standards with little mitigation can be met. Additionally, there are two access points for the combined townhome/flat concept - Edmonds Avenue NE for the primary access to the flats and Glenwood Avenue NE for primary access by townhome residents. 8-4 Inadequate Parking for Current Residents - Parking will Overflow: The Edmonds - Glenwood proposal will include parking that meets City code standards. 8-5 Kids Play in Street - Concern about Traffic: Please see responses to comment 8-3. Also note that the preferred alternative includes a larger park area for the whole neighborhood and proposes pedestrian paths and improvements on surrounding streets. 8-6 Buildings will Block Sun and Create Shade: As noted in Section 4.12 of the Draft EIS for Alternatives 1 and 2 that propose the development along Edmonds -Glenwood, "... RHA housing facilities ...would have the potential to increase shading of adjacent properties to the north, though the effect would be minor due to similarity in height Shading impacts could be minimized through the application of buffers or upper -story setbacks adjacent to existing development." City design guidelines at RMC 4-3-100.E require transitional design standards as follows: "At least one of the following design elements shall be used to promote a transition to surrounding uses: 1. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and/or so that sunlight reaches adjacent and/or abutting yards; or 2. Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels in accordance with the surrounding planned and existing land use forms; or 3. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or 4. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development." EXHIBIT 2- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 Sunset Area Community Draft EIS: Preliminary Responses to Comments February 2, 2011 Page 7 of 12 8-7 Parking Area will have 24 -Hour Light: City lighting standards require that lights not trespass on other properties through the use of shielding and other techniques. (See RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site.) 8-8 High Density will discourage new Renters: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Please see responses to comments 8-2 regarding density. Please also note the planned public investment in terms of infrastructure, mixed income housing, and services is intended to create a more vital attractive area for housing and jobs. 8-9 Increased Pedestrian Traffic by Strangers: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Note that pedestrian traffic will be directed towards improved sidewalks and paths in the neighborhood. Well designed development according to "crime prevention through environmental design" principles means more visibility and ownership of common areas. Additionally, encouraging tenants to get to know neighbors may be appropriate as well. 8-10 Tenant Turnover: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. It is our understanding that RHA managed properties have very little turnover. We will obtain information about the average length of residency in RHA properties. 8-11 Increased Noise: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. It appears the Edmonds -Glenwood site proposes surface parking south of the property owner's side yard, and is not directly behind the property owner's duplex unlike the existing development the commenter references. We will discuss with the City and RHA site development or property management techniques to reduce noise from daily activities. 8-12 Garbage Thrown Over Fence: We will contact RHA to determine their typical management practices and demonstrate that active management and appropriate location and size of trash receptacles should minimize such occurrences. 8-13 Construction Activity Affecting Ability to Rent: The Draft EIS identified a number of construction mitigation measures regarding traffic, dust, noise, etc. These mitigation measures are co -located in Chapter 1, Summary, Table 1-2. These will also apply to the preferred alternative. 8-14 What will final location of parking bel The preferred alternative proposes that the Edmonds -Glenwood site be designed more like Alternative 1 or 2, which includes parking behind buildings whether from Glenwood Avenue NE or Edmonds Avenue NE. Alternative 3 showed a design with parking facing Glenwood Avenue NE and that is not part of the preferred alternative. EXHIBIT 2- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 Sunset Area Community Draft EIS: Preliminary Responses to Comments February 2, 2011 Page 8 of 12 8-15 Want to Submit Additional Comments in the Future/Concerned about Planned Action Limiting Future Comments: The Planned Action EIS discloses environmental impacts of planned future public investment and public and private redevelopment, and the City has provided notice through scoping, the Draft EIS Comment Period, and public hearings. In order to qualify as a Planned Action under SEPA future proposals will be required to be consistent with EIS assumptions and mitigation measures. The Planned Action Ordinance limits the SEPA review process and amount of future environmental review required, but does not preclude future notice of projects. Based on the Renton Municipal Code, if a land use or construction permit requires public notice, public notice will be issued. RHA proposals for Sunset Terrace redevelopment are reviewed in the Sunset Area Planned Action NEPA/SEPA EIS, and further NEPA analysis for the Sunset Terrace area redevelopment would not be required. Regarding other future RHA proposals, there is no "Planned Action" for proposals subject to NEPA, and activities that meet NEPA review thresholds and are obtaining federal permits or funding may require additional NEPA environmental review; however, agencies may also use the Planned Action EIS to the extent appropriate to address potential impacts of NEPA projects. E rr• 3 €(€(1€ EIE1E4€ (€1E4E;€4EtE4E €€{4E!€ €#€a€ € �€aE' Letter 9 Allison O Brien i1 I7e arfinen,,, o , term w� �:,...,.,..EE..,....w .,,..,� .................................. ....... 9-1 No Comment: We appreciate the Department's interest in the proposals. ......... e.mm. ...,e.....�., f R f EE!#' k.'V::..:? i..:;::.•o..?:°e:_!'.:�!'.:.^^...�..°::::.::'.:::_...».a,.........._.__......�..�..�...:. ..�......,.a,a��.. - .ette� Q € aI eeTi SSB Op €sass � s�€,€f€ € € € I€tx € €n r 10-1 Sunset Area Has Seen Many Businesses in Last 95 Years: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. 10-2 Fire Station and Noise: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. The fire station provide fire suppression and emergency medical services to benefit the neighborhood use. While the present station was recently built north of NE 12th Street, it is not a new use to the neighborhood and for decades was located south of NE Sunset Boulevard in the Planned Action Study Area. 10-3 Highlands Library Transfer: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision - maker consideration. As described in Section 3.16, in early 2010, the City annexed to the King County Library System. The Renton Highlands Branch is located within the study area at 2902 NE 12th Street. The current facility is approximately 6,592 square feet in size and provides 59 hours of service per week to the community (King County Library System 2010)." Further, the Draft EIS discusses that the City and King County Library System propose to relocate the library within the neighborhood and increase its size to 15,000 s.f. 10-4 School Crowding and Busing of Students: The Draft EIS in Sections 3.16 and 4.16 analyzes current and planned education services in terms of growth in the Sunset Area Planned Action study area. Renton School District addresses busing services. The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. EXHIBIT 2- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 Sunset Area Community Draft EIS: Preliminary Responses to Comments February 2, 2011 Page 9of12 10-5 Area Has Revitalized and More Growth will Affect Neighborhood Livability: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. The increased growth will bring more mixed income housing and jobs and stimulate spending at area businesses. Future development will be required to meet City parking standards. 10-6 No more Low and Modest Income Residences: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. The Sunset Terrace redevelopment would change the area from a public housing development to a mixed income development including market rate housing. It will include housing styles that promote ownership (e.g. townhouses). 10-7 Additional Noise and Traffic Due to Adding 479 Units: The Draft EIS reviews the cumulative increase in noise and traffic due to increases in growth at Sunset Terrace and throughout the neighborhood. Current noise levels exceed US Department of Housing and Urban Development standards but not Washington State Department of Transportation standards, and the EIS identifies some potential increases in noise due to growth, but also identifies mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts. While there are some potential increases in traffic volumes also described in the EIS, little mitigation is required because NE Sunset Boulevard and most streets have capacity and would meet City level of Service Standards. Please see Sections 3.6/4.6 and 3.14/4.14 for noise and transportation analysis respectively. 10-8 Additional Crime: Based on current ratios of police officers per 1,000 population, with additional growth, additional police officers may be needed as described in Draft EIS Section 4.16. For the Final EIS we could provide some references to studies regarding the lack of association with low income housing and crime.' 10-9 Concern for Lack of Common Language, Increased Density, Needs of Senior Citizens: The Renton School District provides a program titled "English Language Learner Program" which may see more use over time as the neighborhood grows, as documented in Section 4.16 of the Draft EIS. Regarding density, there are no further changes to zoning proposed in the neighborhood. Please note that the City is implementing zoning that was approved in 2007 after obtaining input from a task force and residents (see Draft EIS page 2-10). Regarding needs of senior citizens, the Sunset Terrace redevelopment plans include additional senior housing and a PACE facility for the frail elderly. 10-10 Protect the Neighborhood from Developers: Please note that the City is implementing zoning that was approved in 2007 after obtaining input from a task force and residents (see Draft EIS page 2-10). 10-11 Summary of Concerns: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Please see responses to comments 10-1 to 10-10. 1 For example, "Low-income housing development, and the associated revitalization of neighborhoods, brings with it significant reductions in violent crime that are measurable at the county level." Matthew Freedman and Emily Owens. 2010. "Low -Income Housing Development and Crime" The Selected Works of Matthew Freedman Available at: http://works.bepress.com/matthew_freedman/12. EXHIBIT 2- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 Sunset Area Community Draft EIS: Preliminary Responses to Comments February 2, 2011 Page 10 of 12 11-1 Highlands Library Needs to be LargerlHave Better Computers: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Please see responses to comment 10-3. 11-2 Highlands Retail Needs New Layout: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Based on zoning in place as commercial areas redevelop the City's setback and parking location and access requirements would result in better defined layouts. 11-3 Harrington Square Shows Demand for More and Better Housing: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. 11-4 Need Dedicated Senior Housing: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision - maker consideration. Regarding needs of senior citizens, the Sunset Terrace redevelopment plans include additional senior housing and a PACE facility for the frail elderly. 11-5 Need Community Facilities for Play: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Please see Section 4.15 for analysis of parks and recreation needs and additional mitigation. Also please note the preferred alternative proposes to aggregate and expand park facilities north of NE Sunset Boulevard. 11-6 Increase in Mixed Income Units will Benefit Library and Retail Space: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. 11-7 Enhance Sunset Traffic Corridor: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Alternatives 2, 3, and the preferred alternative propose a "complete streets" concept for NE Sunset Boulevard, with greater strides made with Alternative 3 and the preferred alternative. C��tterl2„1CarnWalter�1+[tickles©o1�Tnd�an"tbxserlesDt�s�on ... ,x. c�x�c6€6E rE �{E � 12-1 Johns Creek and Salmonid Use: Johns Creek issues from a stormwater discharge culvert approximately 800 feet upstream of its mouth at Lake Washington. The stream in that reach is at the grade of Lake Washington and for this reason is not flow control limited. The stream provides rearing habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon, which enter the lower stream from Lake Washington and use it as foraging habitatz. The Final EIS will update and clarify the information about Johns Creek. 2 Tabor, R.A. et al. 2006. Nearshore Habitat Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in Lentic Systems of the Lake Washington Basin. Lacey, WA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. EXHIBIT 2- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 Sunset Area Community Draft EIS: Preliminary Responses to Comments February 2, 2011 Page 11 of 12 12-2 Recommend that Johns Creek Basin be Applied Flow Control Duration Standard as required for Honey and May Creek Basins: The Consultant team in conjunction with City staff will be developing a response that: • Summarizes current stormwater requirements; • Describes future reduction of pollutants and flow control measures • Describes performance standards for the study area per the proposed Drainage Master Plan • Describes improved water quality due to application of standards and green infrastructure 41 Provides example green infrastructure projects and the City's or region's experience (Is Rainier Avenue a potential example?) 12-3 Recommend Low Impact Development Techniques: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Alternatives 2, 3, and the preferred alternative include implementation of green infrastructure and a drainage master plan. `ktrjstze C etchgntt,'.0 S Envucrmm�t1 low .ao .._.. _. V _ .._..e 13-1 Link Mitigation Goals to a Monitoring Plan or Program: Our primary monitoring tool will be the Planned Action Ordinance that is included in draft form in Draft EIS Appendix C. Section 4 of the draft ordinance includes "Monitoring and Review." Also, Exhibit B of that draft ordinance cross references the mitigation measures that public or private development/activities will need to incorporate (Exhibit B now cross references mitigation in Chapter 1 of the Draft EIS). The Final EIS will contain a more complete planned action ordinance As we move forward to define a preferred alternative and craft a final planned action ordinance for adoption, we will incorporate the final mitigation measures directly within the ordinance and give clear roles and responsibilities about who is to implement the mitigation measure and when, and we will be more specific with the mitigation language moving from "should" to "shall" As we craft the preferred alternative and refine the draft Planned Action Ordinance we can add to the ordinance (either in Section 4 or in Exhibit B) guidance about measuring sustainability. 13-2 NEPA Analysis is Adequate — Now Can Define a Preferred Alternative: The comment is noted. The Final EIS will analyze a preferred alternative. 13-3 Preferred Alternative Should Incorporate to the Maximum Quality Urban Design, Sustainable Urban Development, and Livability Principles: The comment is noted, The Final EIS will analyze a preferred alternative, and will document compatibility with goals identified in Draft EIS Chapter 2, Section 2.6.3, and will identify urban design requirements per City code, sustainability measures incorporated, and how these support livability principles. 13-4 Recommend Selected Transportation Features (Largely from Alternative 3): All the listed bulleted items are under consideration as part of the preferred alternative. EXHIBIT 2- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 Sunset Area Community Draft EIS: Preliminary Responses to Comments February 2, 2011 Page 12 of 12 13-5 Recommend Mitigation Measures be Carried Forward in Section 1.6: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision -maker consideration. Based on the level of conceptual planning some of the measures would be better known at the time of construction plans, and thus the City may continue a "menu" based approach to encourage a variety of appropriate measures that would be determined feasible at a more detailed stage of planning. Please also see response to Comment 13-1. 13-6 Desired Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures: Please see response to comment 13- 5. 13-7 Other Sustainability Measures: We will consider measures addressing diesel emissions from construction in the Final EIS air quality analysis. As part of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area, mid -block pedestrian connections could be considered. Also, Figure 2-14 provides a map of potential pedestrian connection opportunities for the broader study area. We will discuss with the City the potential for a transportation management district. The Sunset Terrace public housing development creates opportunities for parks and open space activities which may include community gardens. The City and RHA could consider identifying some portion of the central park area in the preferred alternative as a community garden. We also understand the City Parks Division is pursuing funding and researching community garden sites for the neighborhood. 13-8 Recommend a Systematic Analytical Process to Determine Maximum Combination of Implementable Sustainability Features: The comment is noted. We recommend including in the Final EIS a checklist of the proposal goals and objectives in Draft EIS Section 2.6.3 and how the preferred alternative features implement each one. Another option is to use the LEED-ND worksheet, but that is not related to the specific goals for the neighborhood and we prefer an approach that recognizes the goals and objectives in Section 2.6.3 13-9 Monitoring: The comment is noted. Please see response to comment 10-1. 13-10 Quantitative Mitigation Measures, Adaptive Management: The comment is noted. Please see response to comment 10-1. EXHIBIT 3- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 1CF INTERNATIONAL Memorandum Date: February 2, 2411 To: Erika Conkling, Senior Planner, City of Renton Cc: Roger Mason, CH2MHill From: Lisa Grueter Senior Planner, ICF Subject: Status of Comments on Sunset Area Planned Action Biological Assessment This memo transmits the questions/comments of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on our Draft Biological Assessment provided to the agency in early December 2010. The NMFS email is attached. The questions/comments relate mostly to the City's stormwater code and the proposed Drainage Master Plan. Below we have summarized how the consultant team is planning to respond once we have more analysis to share: In an addendum, we will remove references to "alternatives" and describe the "proposed action" (which is generally based on our upper bookend of growth, minimizing the potential that additional consultation would need to be reinitiated to address changes in the proposed action); • We will clarify salmonid use of Johns Creek; • We will summarize the City's current stormwater requirements; • We will describes future pollutant reduction and flow control measures including additional description of green stormwater infrastructure practices- public and private; • We will describe performance standards for the study area per the proposed Drainage Master Plan; We will describe improved water quality due to application of standards and green infrastructure; We will provide example green infrastructure projects and the City's (e.g. Rainier Avenue?) or region's experience and summarize conditions within the Sunset Area that relate to the feasibility of implementing green infrastructure; We will describe how the Planned Action ordinance works and that we do not anticipate less restrictive stormwater requirements in the 20 -year life of the planned action; • We will describe based on studies/literature how mixed use development increases use of transit and pedestrian activity; 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550 w— Seattle, WA 98104 � 206.801.2800 �, 206.801.2899 fax � Mi-com EXHIBIT 3- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- E_UA 10-052 Responses to Comments on the Biological Assessment February 2, 2011 Page 2 of 5 s We will describe how we are providing treatment along NE Sunset Boulevard that does not exist today and how it will take care of treating future volumes. EXHIBIT 3- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 Responses to Comments on the Biological Assessment February 2, 2011 Page 3 of 5 Attachment: From: DeeAnn Kirkpatrick[mailto:Deeann.Kirkpatrick@noaa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 12:09 PM To: Erika Conkling; Ryan.E.Mielcarek@hud.gov Cc: Thomas Sibley Subject: Sunset Area Community Planned Action Hi Erika and Ryan, I have reviewed the BA for the Sunset Area Community Planned Action and have the following questions: 1. On page 1-4, this proposal is identified as Alternative 3 in the draft EIS. What were the other alternatives proposed in the EIS, and why was this alternative selected? On page 4-14, this alternative is identified as Alternative 2. Please clarify which is correct. 2. On page 1-4, technical requirements for the design of stormwater facilities are identified as being in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, which was adopted by the City with amendments. What are the relevant 2009 King County requirements, and what amendments were made by the City prior to adoption? 3. On page 1-5, redevelopment plans are described as integrating a stormwater palette of options that would support redevelopment and a lead by example approach that integrates stormwater retrofits in public owned areas, and reduces barriers to green stormwater infrastructure for private development. What assurances do you have that these green stormwater infrastructure options will be implemented on public and private land? How do requirements for public and private stormwater infrastructure differ? Are measures to protect and restore vegetation and soils, remove impervious surfaces, and consider site design to minimize stormwater effects, included in the palette of options? 4. On page 1-5, it is also stated that public stormwater infrastructure would receive advanced capacity to accommodate private development and this capacity would serve as advanced mitigation for existing development, and as an incentive for redevelopment by providing off-site stormwater mitigation. Please explain how this would work, and the certainty associated with this type of infrastructure development taking place. 5. Page 1-5. When will the City adopt a Planned Action Ordinance, and with what assumptions and mitigation measures from the Sunset Area Community EIS will proposed projects need to be consistent? 6. Page 1-6. Other components of the planned action are not subject to any adopted timeline, but will occur between 2011-2030. How will the Planned Action Ordinance be updated to ensure that proposed new- or redevelopment is implementing the most recent post construction stormwater management requirements EXHIBIT 3- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 Responses to Comments on the Biological Assessment February 2, 2011 Page 4 of 5 that may be updated/revised between now and 2030? As well, how will changing requirements for stormwater associated with construction activities be implemented? 7. Page 1-6. It seems a lot of the impact avoidance and minimization measures rely on the implementation of green stormwater infrastructure, which in turn relies on the certainty around implementing this type of infrastructure, and the technical feasibility for these types of infrastructure to be effective. What success has the City had in implementing green stormwater infrastructure and/or infiltration facilities in this area in the past? What soils and or geologic information support successful use of this type of infrastructure? 8. Page 4-13. The City's stormwater management standards are focused on reducing potential pollution from impervious surfaces. what standards are these? If Ecology standards, how frequently do you expect enhanced water quality treatment will be required versus basic water quality treatment? Are water quality treatment requirements different for redeveloped properties versus newly developed properties? 9. Page 4-13. The stormwater management code requires flow control BMPs where feasible. How is feasibility determined? Why are sites that can't feasibly use dispersion or infiltration only required to provide flow control for 10 or 20 percent of the site? Under what circumstances would flow control be required to match existing peak flows within the Johns Creek Basin? 10. The BA describes a general plan for implementing green infrastructure in the study area over a 20 -year timeframe. How many projects are predicted to be constructed under the Planned Action Ordinance? 11. Table 3 shows an increase in impervious area and increase in percent impervious in three watersheds, in the Study Area, and the Sunset Terrace area. The table also shows an increase in the acreage of flow control provided and a decrease in acreage of untreated PCIS. However, the percent of acreage for which flow control provided is only 3.89 over the combined geographic area. How do you know if this is enough to protect listed salmonids? Similarly, the percent of untreated PCIS is 18%, and the level of water quality treatment is not specified (does it address for example, dissolved copper and zinc that are harmful to salmon at low levels), so how do you know this is enough to protect listed salmon? In addition, is there any requirement in the Planned Action Ordinance to ensure that these levels of flow control and untreated PGIS are collectively being reached on an annual or some other regular basis, so that these ultimate targets are reached at the end of the 20 year development period? 12. Page 4-14 mentions that the Johns Creek watershed does not support anadromous salmonids. However, research by Tabor et al, (2006, EXHIBIT 3- ERC Report of February 7, 2011- LUA 10-052 Responses to Comments on the Biological Assessment February 2, 2011 Page 5 of 5 attached) has documented that the mouth and at least 1500 feet upstream of the mouth of John's Creek is very important rearing habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon (of the 17 tributaries surveyed in Lake Washington, Johns Creek was by far the most used). This would seem to argue for requiring the same flow control and reduced pollutant loading in this system. 13. Page 4-16. According to Table 4, the population in this planning area is expected to more than double (51%) over the next 20 years. However, incremental impacts attributable to population growth and urbanization and not expected to result in harmful effects to salmonids in large part because of a reduction in vehicle traffic and enhanced stormwater treatment. What certainty exists that the expected reduction in vehicle traffic will occur? With the proposed increase in public transit, how will this contribute to vehicle - related impacts on stormwater? Thanks for your help in answering these questions. DeeAnn Kirkpatrick 206-526-4452