No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscR*PI tEk7 h U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development * J * x Seattle Regional Office 909 First Avenue, suite 255 Seattle, Washington, 98i D4 Environmental Assessment for HUD -funded Proposals Recommended format per 24 CFR 58.38, revised February 2004 [Previously recommended EA formats are obsolete]. Project Identification: Hillcrest Terrace WA 011040002 S -F 187 Laundry and Resident Community Building Preparer. Gil-Cerisee I_CF International Responsible Entity: City of Renton, Washington Month/Year: February 2011 I of 16 HUD Seattle Region Envirowiiental Office -- May 2005 Environmental Assessment Responsible Entity: City of Renton Washington, 1065 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057 [24 CFR 58.2(a)(7)) Certifying Officer: Mayor Denis Law and designee the Environmental Review Committee 124 CFR 58.2(a)(2)l Project Name: Hillcrest Terrace WA01000002 S -F 187 LaundrV and Resident Community Building Project Location: 1442 Hillcrest Lane NE, Renton, WA 98056 — located mid -block between Hillcrest Lane NE and Kirkland Avenue NE. Estimated total project cost: $600,000 Grant Recipient: Renton Housing Authority [24 CFR 58.2(x}(5}) Recipient Address: PO Box 2316 Renton WA 98056 Project Representative: _ Mark Gropper, Executive Director, Renton Housino Authority Telephone Number: 425-226-1850 Ext. 223 Conditions for Approval: (List all mitigation measures adopted by the responsible entity to eliminate or minimize adverse environmental impacts. These conditions must be included in project contracts and other relevant documents as requirements). [24 CFR 58AO(d), 40 CFR 15D5.2(c)) 'I. Air Quality (Construction -related): The City shall require all construction contractors to implement air quality control plans for construction activities in the project area. The air quality control plans should include BMPs to control fugitive dust and odors emitted by diesel construction equipment. The following BMPs will be used to control fugitive dust. Use water sprays or other non-toxic dust control methods on unpaved roadways. Minimize vehicle speed while traveling on unpaved surfaces. • Prevent trackout of mud onto public streets. Cover soil piles when practical. • Minimize work during periods of high winds when practical. The following mitigation measures will be used to minimize air quality and odor issues caused by tailpipe emissions. • Maintain the engines of construction equipment according to manufacturers' specifications. • Minimize idling of equipment while the equipment is not in use. 2 of 16 HUD Seattle Re6on Envirownental Office -- May 2005 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. 2. Aquifer Protection Area, Zone 2: The project site is located within Zone 2 of the City of Renton Aquifer Protection Area (APA). The project applicant will be required to provide a fill source statement as described in Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-12OD19 for each source location from which imported fill material will be obtained at the time of engineering permit application as per RMC 4-3-050C.1.a.vi. and RMC 4-4-060N.4. 3. Storm Water: To meet the flow control requirements, additional stormwater flow control facility is required to control the stormwater runoff from the laundry and resident community building. The facility can be a rain garden, vegetated roof, or infiltration BMPs. 4. Hazardous Material mitigation measures would consist of the following: Contractors will 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 will be required to implement best management 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. FINDING: I58.40(g)) _K_ Finding of No Significant Impact (The project will not result in a significant impact on the quality of the human environment) Finding of Significant Impact (The project may significantly affect the quality of the human environment) Preparer Signature: Namerritle/Agency: RE Approving Offic NameMtlel Agency Pate-, 3 of 16 HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office — May 2005 Statement of Purpose and Need for the Proposal: (40 CFR 1508,9(b)l The existing Hillcrest Terrace housing for seniors and disabled lacks a viable community space and centralized emergency response area, and the existing resident laundry facility is isolated from dwellings and lack Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) facilities. In addition, the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) is looking for additional maintenance space to serve Hillcrest Terrace and other nearby RHA properties. Moving the existing laundry to an accessible, centralized location would provide additional space adjacent to Hillcrest Terrace's existing maintenance space. Description of the Proposal: Include all contemplated actions which logically are either geographically or functionally a composite part of the project, regardless of the source of funding. 124 CFR 58.32, 40 CFR 1508.251 The Proposal consists of construction of a 2,200 square foot ADA -accessible community and laundry building between two existing public housing structures on a contiguous flat parcel with full infrastructure services in place. Existing laundry facilities would be moved to the new building. The existing laundry space is adjacent to the maintenance shop. Moving the laundry to the centralized, accessible building would provide supplemental maintenance space to serve Hillcrest Terrace as well as other RNA properties. Supplemental maintenance space would be within the existing laundry building and would not include expanding building area. The proposal would replace a landscaped area and 1,000-1,500 square feet of walkway area with 3,950 square feet of impervious surfaces including the 2,200 square foot community and laundry building, a patio, and associated walkways. Existing Conditions and Trends: Describe the existing conditions of the project area and its surroundings, and trends likely to continue in the absence of the project. [24 CFR 58.40(a)l Hillcrest Terrace is a 60 -unit ground -related low-income conventional public housing property constructed in 1962-1963. These one -bedroom apartments house seniors and disabled residents with an average age of 68 years and primary source of income from Social Security and Supplemental Security income. The existing laundry room lacks ADA features, has poor proximity to dwelling units, and being adjacent to the existing maintenance shop, would serve as an ideal supplemental maintenance space for Hillcrest Terrace as well as other RHA properties, including the planned redevelopment of Sunset Terrace nearby_ A viable community space for Hillcrest residents to gather for meetings, supportive services, and to socialize is currently absent from Hillcrest Terrace. Without a common area residents are more isolated. In addition, the residents were inadequately supported during extended power outages on the property in recent years. To this end the space will act as a location for emergency response, social services, senior nutrition and lunch services, as well as a newly constructed laundry in an inviting, accessible, and safe arrangement. Statutory Checklist [24CFR §58.5] Record the determinations made regarding each listed statute, executive order or regulation. Provide appropriate source documentation, [Note reviews or consultations completed as well as any applicable permits or approvals obtained or required. Note dates of contact or page references[. Provide compliance or consistency documentation. Attach additional material as appropriate. Note conditions, attenuation or mitigation measures required. Factors Determination and Compliance Documentation Historic Preservation Two significant cultural resources were identified in the Area of P6 CFR 800] Potential Effects (APE), consisting of the buildings at 1430- 4 of 16 HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office -- May 2005 5 of t6 HUD Seattle Region Enviroiunental Office -- May 2005 1454 and 9456-1486 Hillcrest Lane NE. However, based on the results of the cultural resources investigations, the project is not expected to adversely affect the two significant cultural resources. (See Attachment A-1, Cultural Resources Surrey Report Hillcrest Terrace Community Building, November 2010). A fetter to the City of Renton from the Washington State Department of Archaeology & Historic. Preservation (DAHP) dated December 9, 2D10 indicates that DAHP does not concur with the findings In Attachment A-1, and that the properties referenced in that attachment are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The letter indicates that no further consultation with DAHP is required (See Attachment A-2, letter from Russell Holter, Project Compliance Officer, DAHP to Erika Conkling, Cq of Renton . Floodplain Management The project site lies outside of the floodplain. According to 124 CFR 55, Execufive Order 11988] F.I.R.M. panel number 53033CO668F, 05-16-95, the project site is within Zone X, located outside the 500 year flood plain. See Additional Resource #8. Wetlands Protection Based upon a review of the National Wetlands Inventory's (rcxecudve Order 119901 digital wetlands mapper tool: (http:l/www_fws.ggyinwi/), and the City of Renton critical area maps (RMC 4-3-05406) there are no wetlands on or near the project site. See Additional Resources #3 and #9. Coastal Zone The project is within the Washington coastal zone Management Act management area. The City of Renton submitted its request [sections 307(c),(d)] for consistency determination to the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (See Attachment B Department of Ecology determination of consistency letter to Erika Conkling, City of Renton, and request for Coastal Zone Mana ement consistency from City of Renton. Sole Source Aquifers The proposal is located outside of the U.S. EPA designated [40 Ci=R 1493 sole source aquifer for Cedar Valley identified on the U.S. EPA website at: http://yosem ite.epa, Aov/r10/water_ ns_f/Sole+Source+Aqu iferslss amaps. (See Additional Resource #21) However, the proposal is located within Zone 2 of the City of Renton's Aquifer Protection Area (RMC 4-3-050Q1). The project applicant will be required to provide a fill source statement as described in RMC 4-8-12OD19 for each source location from which imported fill material will be obtained at the time of engineering permit application as per RMC 4-3- 050C.1.a.vi. And RMC 4-4-060N.4. (See Additional Resource #24). Endangered Species Act Stormwater would be discharged via the City of Renton [50 CFR 4023 stormwater system, which discharges to Johns Greek, a non - salmonid -bearing stream that is more than'/ mile from any salmonid -bearing stream or proposed/designated critical habitat. However, the project would remove one ornamental tree of a non-native species, approximately 20 feet tall. No listed species, nor any designated or proposed critical habitat for the named species, occurs within the area of the project and its effects. A "letter of no effect" signed by Chris Earle, PhD is included as Attachment C this Environmental Assessment (EA). Dr. Earle concludes that in accordance with HUD's "Endangered Species Act No Effect Guidance for Washington State," the project would have No Effect on listed 5 of t6 HUD Seattle Region Enviroiunental Office -- May 2005 W n FnvirnnmPntat Standards Determination and Compliance Documentation Noise Abatement and Control 1:24 CFR 51 B1 or proposed species, and designated or proposed critical Toxic/Hazardous/Radioactive habitat. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Materials, Contamination, and/or NOAA Fisheries is not required. Wild and Scenic Based on a review of the National Scenic and Wild Rivers Rivers Act website (htt ://vrww.rivers. ovlwildrivers)ist,htm1) there are no (sections 7 (b), (c)1 Federally -designated rivers in King County, and thus not in Renton or the subject site. See Additional Resource #18). Air Quality Renton, including the project site, Is currently designated as a [Clean Air Act, Sections 178 (c) maintenance area for CO and PM10 and an attainment area and (d), and 40 CFR 6, 51, 931 for all other criteria pollutants (ozone, PM 2-5, lead, sulfur dioxide [SO2] and NOz). See U.S. EPA website identifying air quality nonattainment areas at: Siting of HUD -Assisted htip://epa.gc)vfoar/oagl)s/greenbk/ancl.html. (See Additional Projects near Hazardous Resource #22). Farmland Protection Policy The project site has not been designated as prime or unique Act I7 CFR 6581 agricultural land. It is zone R-14 (multifamily residential) as found on the official City of Renton zoning map: htt :ilrentonnet.or iinterneta s/ma sl df/Cit °/`2OMa s/Zonin q. df. See Additional Resource #7). Environmental Justice The project site is suitable for the proposed uses and is [Executive Order 12898) compatible with surrounding land uses (See Additional Resources #1 and 7, and Attachment F).. In addition, based upon the environmental findings of this assessment the project will not be adversely affected by hazardous materials (see Attachment D Existing Hazardous Materials Conditions at Hillcrest Terrace memorandum, November 22, 2040). The proposal is intended to better meet the social and daily needs of income qualified senior citizen residents onsite and environmental justice im acts are not anticipated. W n FnvirnnmPntat Standards Determination and Compliance Documentation Noise Abatement and Control 1:24 CFR 51 B1 The site is in a residential neighborhood fronting local streets. The proposal is new construction of a laundry and community meeting space for an existing multifamily residential development. As such, it is not considered a noise -sensitive use {personal communication, Jim Wilder, ICF Noise and Air Quality Specialist, November 12, 2010 - (See Additional Resource #16). Toxic/Hazardous/Radioactive Based upon findings of the Existing Hazardous Materials Materials, Contamination, Conditions at Hillcrest Terrace memorandum, November 22, Chemicals or Gases 2010 (Attachment D), the only hazardous material sites within {24 CFR 58.5(i)(2)1 0.25 -mile radius of the project site are two underground storage tanks, including one located at the North Highlands Community Center site on the adjacent property to the south. The two underground storage tanks are not expected to have an adverse impact on the project unless there is previously undiscovered release from them. See mitigation measures for measures recommended in Attachment D relating to hazardous materials during construction. Siting of HUD -Assisted There are no stationary aboveground storage tanks more than Projects near Hazardous 100 gallons in size within 025 -mile of the project site (Personal Operations [24 cr-R 51 q communication with Cory Cappelletti, Renton Fire Department, November 5, 2010, and Rachel Chang, CH2M Hill, November 22, 2010 - See Additional Resource #13). 6 of 16 HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office -- May 2005 Airport Clear Zones and There are no civil airports within 3,000 feet, or military airfields Accident Potential Zones within 15,000 Beet of the project site. Renton Municipal Airport, [24 CFR 51 Dl the nearest airport, is approximately 2 miles from the site. (see and Zoning list of regulated airports at: the project site as CV (Center Village), and the Renton zoning http:/lAr�vw.hud.govllocal/shared/workingirI alenvironment/airpo rts.pdf.) (See Additional Resource #12). Environmental Assessment Checklist [Environmental Review Guide HUD CPD 782, 24 CFR 58.44; Ref. 40 CFR 1508.8 $1508.271 Evaluate the significance of the effects of the proposal on the character, features and resources of the project area. Enter relevant base data and verifiable source documentation to support the finding. Then enter the appropriate impact code from the following list to make a determination of impact. Impact Codes; (1) - No impact anticipated; (2) - Potentially beneficial; (3) - Potentially adverse; (4) - Requires mitigation; (5) - Requires project modification. Note names, dates of contact, telephone numbers and page references. Attach additional material as appropriate. Note conditions or mitigation measures required. Land Development Cade Source or Documentation Conformance with 1 The proposed development is in conformance with the City of Comprehensive Plans Renton Comprehensive Plan (adopted 2008) which designates and Zoning the project site as CV (Center Village), and the Renton zoning code (Title IV of Renton Municipal Code) which designates the property as R-14 (Residential -14 IDUlAcre). The proposal Includes support facilities for an existing multi -family senior housing development, an accessory use to the principal uses within the R-14 zone. (see City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and City of Renton zoning maps at: http;lirentonnet.orglintemetapgslmaps/pdfICity°/*2OMaps/ ) (See Additional Resources #1 2 and 7). Compatibility and 1 The proposed laundry and resident community building is Urban Impact compatible with surrounding land uses. The general area is composed of single -story multifamily residential uses with a nearby institutional uses (school and community center). The proposed structure will be a single -story structure that fits into a central location on an existing low-income senior and disabled housing development. The proposed use is compatible with nearby multifamily residential and institutional uses. (See Attachments F and G, and Additional Resources #1 and 7)_ Slope 1 The project site is flat and about 8 feet below Kirkland Avenue NE which flanks the east side of the apartment complex. See Attachment E, Report of Geotechncial and Infiltration Studies Proposed Maintenance Building Hillcrest Terrace (May 2010). According to the City of Renton Steep Slope Map (see: http://rento nnet.orglinternetapps/mai3s/pdfISensitivo`/o2OAreaslS teep%20Slopes.pdf), this small slope area ranges between 15%- 25%. No slopes will be created by cut and fill and project construction will occur outside of the identified slope area which (personal communication, Grace Kim, Schemata Workshop, November 22, 2010 - See Additional Resourr_e #14). Erosion The project area does not have any indication of erosion 1 problems (see City of Renton Erosion Hazards map at: http:lirentonnet.orglinternetappslmaos/odfiSensi tive%a20AreaslE rosion%20Hazard.pdf). The Report of Geotechnical and Infiltration Studies for Proposed Maintenance Building (May 2010) in Attachment E indicates a lack of erosion hazard on the site. On-site drainage will be connected to existing storm drains e systems. See Additional Resource #4). Soil Suitability 1 See Attachment E Report of Geotechnical and Infiltration Studies (May 2010). The soil is a silty sand with gravel. Foundation recommendations are included in Attachment E. 7 of 16 HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office -- May 2005 Hazards and Nuisances 1 The project area is not adversely affected by on-site or off-site including Site Safety hazards or nuisances, Street lighting and turning lanes are present at major intersections near the project site. According to the U.S. EPA Map of Radon Zones, King County is in Zone 3 (Low Potential) for radon (See the U,S. EPA website at: htto:lfwww.epa.aovlradon/states/y; ashington.hlml#zone%20map -- see Additional Resource #20). boundaries, The property itself and surrounding properties are Energy Consumption 1 The project site area is already served by electrical and gas services operated by Puget Sound Energy (Puget Sound Energy service area map; http:/lwww.pse.comlSiteCollectionDocuments/s_ervice area map pdf), Puget Sound Energy will provide service to the proposed Resource #5). Air Quality 4 2,2011 square foot building. Using the values found in the King Effects of Ambient Air Quality on County SEPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Worksheet, Version Project and Contribution to 1.7 (December 2007), the proposed building would generate Community Pollution Levels total annual energy use of 169.6 million British Thermal units (Btus).' The proposed building will be constructed to meet state and City building and energy code requirements. Although the proposed building will add to energy demand, Nate Linville, an engineer at Puget Sound Energy indicates that the proposed project can connect to one of two nearby transformers, and would be able to be accommodated into the electrical grid (Personal Communication, Nate Linville, Puget Sound Energy, December 15, 2010). The project will not add new residences to the project site, and therefore no additional resident -generated trips. It is intended to provide a service to onsite residents. Environmental Design 1 (See Additional Resource #15). Noise - Contribution to 1 The proposed construction of an accessory support building to Community Noise Levels the multifamily residential development will not generate substantial noise. Construction activities are restricted by City of Renton noise ordinance (Chapter 8-7 of RMC which adopts Washington Administrative Code 173-60) which establishes limits on noise levels and durations of noise crossing property boundaries, The property itself and surrounding properties are classified as Class A (residential) zones, and construction would meet the requirements of Class A environmental designations for noise abatement standards. Increased noise from construction activities will be temporary. (See Additional Resource #5). Air Quality 4 During construction, dust from excavation and grading could Effects of Ambient Air Quality on cause temporary, localized increases in the ambient Project and Contribution to concentrations of fugitive dust and suspended particulate matter, Community Pollution Levels Construction activity must comply with Puget Sound Glean Air Agency (PSCAA) regulations requiring reasonable precautions to minimize dust emissions (Regulation I, Section 9.15). Temporary air quality Impacts related to air quality are also anticipated due to use of diesel -powered equipment and causing odors detectible to some people in the vicinity of the construction activity. However, construction impacts to air quality would be temporary and localized. Construction emission control mitigation measures proposed below. The proposed project would not have any other air quality im acts. Environmental Design 1 The mass and scale of the proposed residential accessory Visual Quality - Coherence, building will be in keeping with those in the neighborhood. The ' The calculation assumes that the new 2,200 square foot accessory conu-nunity building would be treated similar to a Service land use type noted found in the King County SEPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Worksheet. Version 1.7. which indicates an annual energy usage per unit of 77.08 million Btus_ 8 of 16 HUD Seattle Region Enviromnental Office -- May 2005 Diversity, Compatible Use and new building will use similar materials to adjoining buildings in Scale the Hillcrest Terrace development. The front entrance will be landscaped to include planter raised planting areas with landscaping, and the rear lot line abutting Kirkland Avenue will include a planting strip between the proposed patio and the street. (See attachment F, plan depiction of proposed structure ad'acent to existing buildings.) Socioeconomic Code Source or Documentation Demographic Character 1 As the project is constructing an accessory support facility for Changes existing residents, the project will not change the demographics of the general area (see attachment C project description and roosaE). Displacement 1 No one will be displaced as a result of constructing the proposed laundry and resident community building (see attachment G ro'ect description and proposal); Employment and Income 1 There will be a minor temporary increase in jobs for construction Patterns 1 workers as a result of constructing this project. Other than this, it is not expected that employment and income pattems will change(see attachment G pLoject description and ro osa[ . Community Facilities and Services Code Source or Documentation Educational Facilities 1 The project area is served by Sierra Heights Elementary, McKnight Middle School, and Hazen High School. In addition, the Hillcrest Special Services Center is located adjacent to the Hillcrest Terrace site, providing early education services to qualified families within the Renton School District The addition of an accessory support facility for Hillcrest Terrace, whose residents are senior and disabled will not impact the capacity of any of these schools. Commercial Facilities 1 The project area is served by a large variety of commercial and retail services, most immediately along Sunset Boulevard (SIS 900), approximately 0-4 miles south of the project site- The addition of an accessory support facility for Hillcrest Terrace, will not add population nor change the demand for commercial activities in the project area. (See Additional Resources #1 and 7. Health Care 1 The project area is within Valley Medical Center's (also known as King County Public Hospital District #1) boundaries- The most proximate Valley Medical Center facilities include the Highlands Primary Care facility (451 Duvall Avenue NE), and the Renton Landing urgent Care facility (at 1205 North 101h Street). Valley Medical Center Hospital is located at 400 S. 43d Street. The SeattlefKing County Public Health Clinic is located nearby at 3001 NE 4th Street, south of the project site. In addition, there are numerous health care professionals within a 5 mile radius of the project area (general physicians, dental, optometrists, and medical specialists). See Valley Medical Center website at: http:/1www.valleymed.oro/Locations.htm and Seattle -King County Department of Health website at: http:llwA,nw-kingcou ntv.govlhealth serviceslhealthllocation slrenton .aspX. mm The addition of an accessory support facility for Hillcrest Terrace, will not add population nor change the demand for health care services in the project area. The support facility does would offer a space for senior nutrition and lunch services and may be a support to services already used by site residents. See Additional Resource #23). Social Services 2 The project area is served by many social service providers. These include the Renton Housing Authority's main office and 9 of 16 HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office -- May 2005 10 of 16 HUD Seattle Region Envirownental Office -- May 2005 several RHA -owned and operated public housing developments, and two feeding programs: The Friendly Kitchen and the Emergency Feeding Program at St. Matthews Lutheran Church. See the City of Renton website at: htt:Ilrentonwa. ovllivin lde(ault.asox?id=18002 and Renton Housing Authority website at: http:/lwArw.rentonhousinq.orgl, The proposal has the potential beneficial impact of providing a meeting space for social gatherings, education, senior nutrition and lunch services, or other purposes, (See Additional Resource #6). Solid Waste 1 The project area is served by Waste Management, a private company providing solid waste collection services to the City of Renton. The proposal will not add more residents, butwill serve onsite residents and replaces an existing laundry facility. The construction of an accessory support facility for an existing residential community may result in a small increase in waste occasionally when events are held at the community center. This is not expected to significantly impact the service provider or the capacity of the existin2 County landfill, Waste Water 1 The project area is served by the City of Renton Sewer Utility. The site Is served by 8-1nch diameter sanitary sewer lines in both Hillcrest Lane NE and Kirkland Avenue NE. Addition of a 2,200 square foot residential accessory support facility may add an additional increment to the sewer flow within the project area due to the kitchen, though the laundry facilities replace an existing laundry use. City requirements include a minimum 6 -inch side sewer connection to service the building and a sewer system development charge, (City of Renton, preapplication meeting, May 20, 2010) (See Additional Resource 914 — preapplication comments). Storm Water 4 The project site is already developed and will replace an area covered by garden area lawn, and Impervious walkway with a 2,200 square foot building, and walkway. The project site is served by a storm water system that is managed and maintained by the City of Renton's Storm Water Utility. The project design Indicates use of rain barrels to capture run off from the new building's roof. To meet City flow control requirements, additional stormwater flow control facility is required to control the stomwmter runoff from the community center. The facility can be a rain garden, vegetated roof, or infiltration BMPs. See Attachment H, Technical Memorandum Stormwater Requirement for Hillcrest Terrace Community Building (November 19, 2010). The City will require a preliminary drainage plan. (City of Renton, preapplication meeting, May 20, 2010. See Additional Resource #14 — preapplication comments Water Supply 1 Drinking water for the project area is provided and maintained by the City of Renton. The property is served by an 8 -inch diameter cast iron water line In Kirkland Avenue NE. The proposal replaces a laundry facility onsite. The community facility contains a kitchen which may periodically result in more water use. A significant difference in water use is not anticipated. The additional 2,200 square foot residential accessory support building will not significantly impact current capacity of this system. Based upon City of Renton Water Utility pre -application meeting comments (May 20, 2010), the site has adequate fire flow, although a hydrant in Hillcrest Lane NE served by a 4 -inch main cannot be relied upon for fireflow. In addition, a Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) may be required downstream of the service meter. (See Additional Resource #14 — preapplication comments). Public Safety 1 Police service to the project area is provided by the City of - Police Renton Police Department, a full-service law enforcement aaencv. Theproject area is located within the department's 10 of 16 HUD Seattle Region Envirownental Office -- May 2005 Natural Features Source or Documentation Water Resources 4 The project is located within Zone 2 of the City of Renton's Aquifer Protection Area (RMC 4-3-05OQ1). The oroiection areas 11 of 16 HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office -- May 2005 North Patrol Sector_ The Police Department's level of service (LOS) standard is to achieve a response time of 3.5 minutes or less for Priority 1 or emergency calls for service. The construction of an accessory facility serving existing residents Will not Impact the ability of the Renton Police Department to respond, nor cause additional burden on wdsting staff. - Fire 2 The project area is primarily served by Renton Fire & Emergency Services Department's Fire Station 12, which is located approximately 0.4 miles south of the project site. Stations 16 and 11 provide back-up service to the project area. The department Inas a response time LOS standard of 7 minutes and 30 seconds from time a call is received until the firefighting force arrives, achieved 90% of the time, which it currently meets 100% of the time. The department also has staffing LOS standards which it currently meets. City fire code requirements will apply to the building (City of Renton, preapplication meeting, May 20, 2010). The addition of an accessory community support building Will not impact ability of the Fire Department to respond, or cause additional burden on existing staff. In addition, the new building is intended to provide a centralized emergency response area, where residents can congregate when an emergency incident occurs, which could provide a beneficial Impact for fere service. (See Additional Resource #14 — I preapplication comments). - Emergency Medical 2 Renton Fire & Emergency Services Department provides emergency medical response service to the project area. See Fire response above for LOS standards and response time. The construction of a residential accessory building will not impact ability to provide emergency medical response service to the project site. Also, as described under Fire above, the project is intended to provide beneficial impact of providing a centralized emergency response area, where residents can congregate when an emergency incident occurs, which could provide a beneficial impact for emergency medical service. (See Additional Resource #14 - preapplication comments). Open Space and Recreation 1 The accessory building will slightly reduce onsite landscaping - Open Space (by approximately 1.5% of the site). The addition of the accessory community building serving existing residents will not impact open space facilities. Surrounding open spaces will not be altered, including the North Highlands Park and Community Center, a 2.64 -acre park located adjacent to the project site to the south. In addition the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center located adjacent to Hillcrest Terrace to the west provides 3,4 acres of open space in the form of baseball fields, soccer fields and playground area. - Recreation 2 The addition of the accessory community building serving existing residents will Mvide a community athedri area. - Cultural Facilities 1 No additional demand for cultural facilities in the neighborhood or city is anticipated as a result of this project. The addition of the accessory community building serving existing residents will provide a community gathering area which may be a location for small scale cultural activities. Transportation 1 The project site is accessible from Hillcrest Lane NE, which circulates through the Hillcrest Terrace development, and Kirkland Avenue NE. No additional transportation trips are anticipated. The laundry and community facility is intended to serve onsite residents. Natural Features Source or Documentation Water Resources 4 The project is located within Zone 2 of the City of Renton's Aquifer Protection Area (RMC 4-3-05OQ1). The oroiection areas 11 of 16 HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office -- May 2005 Other Factors Source or Documentation Flood Disaster Protection Act 1 are the portions of an aquifer within the zone of capture, and the [Flood Insurance) recharge area for wells owned or operated by the City. Zone 2 is (§58.6(a)) the land area situated between the 365 -day groundwater travel time contour and the boundary of the zone of potential capture Coastal Barrier Resources Act/ 1 wells. This aquifer is the sole drinking water source for the City Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of Renton. Since the project site is located in Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area, the project applicant will be required to provide a fill source statement as described in RMC 4-8-120D19 See Additional Resource #10). for each source location from which imported fill material will be Airport Runway Clear Zone or 1 obtained at the time of engineering permit application as per Clear Zone Disclosure RMC 4-3-050C.1.a.vi. And RMC 4-4-060N.4. (See Additional (§58.6(d)) Resource #24). Surface Water 4 There are no rivers, creeks, or open bodies of water in the project area. Furthermore, storm water will be managed by the City's system. See stormwater above regarding water quality s.pdf. See Additional Resource #12). and quantity requirements. Unique Natural Features and 1 The project site is developed and does not contain any unique Agricultural Lands landforms considered to be local landmarks nor important for information concerning natural features. There are no rare or unique vegetative resources present on the site. (City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, November 11, 2010). (See Additional Resources #1, 2 and 7). Vegetation and Wildlife 1 The project site is a developed site. The new building construction will eliminate a small percentage of maintained lawn, shrubs, and trees on the existing housing development site, an area with low habitat value. New landscaping will be provided in the form of raised planter beds and a planting strip would be included as part of the project. However, new vegetation is not likely to provide substantial habitat for sensitive species. Public data sources have not identified any use of the area by sensitive fish, wildlife, or plant species. A "letter of no effect" signed by Chris Earle, PhD (Attachment C) concludes that in accordance with HUD's "Endangered Species Act No Effect Guidance for Washington Slate," the project would have No Effect on listed or proposed species, and designated or ro ased critical habitat, Other Factors Source or Documentation Flood Disaster Protection Act 1 The project site Is in Zone X, outside the 500 -year floodplain [Flood Insurance) according to FIRM maps. In addition, City of Renton RMC 4-3- (§58.6(a)) 050632 indicates that project site is outside of flood hazard areas. See Additional Resource 48). Coastal Barrier Resources Act/ 1 The project is not located in a designated Coastal Barrier Coastal Barrier Improvement Act Resources Area. (See webpage listing designated Coastal Barrier Improvement Areas- http://www.fws.gov/habitatcc)nservation/coastal barrler.htmij See Additional Resource #10). Airport Runway Clear Zone or 1 There are no FAA -designated airports within 3,000 feet or Clear Zone Disclosure Department of Defense military airfields within 15,000 feet of the (§58.6(d)) project site. Renton Municipal Airport, the nearest airport, is approximately 2 miles from the site. (see list of regulated airports at; htip:i'ivmrw.hud.gov/1ocallshared)workTng/r101environmenUair ort s.pdf. See Additional Resource #12). Other Factors 12 of 16 HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office -- May 2005 Summary of Findings and Conclusions The proposed project which would construct a 2,200 square foot residential accessory structure for laundry and community gatherings for existing multifamily residences at Hillcrest Terrace will not adversely impact the neighborhood. This activity is compatible with the existing uses in the area. The proposed project also will not adversely impact existing resources or services in the area. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION Alternatives and Project Modifications Considered 124 CFR 58.40(x), Ref. 40 CFR 1508_$) (identify other reasonable courses of action that were considered and not selected, such as other sites, design modifications, or other uses of the subject site. Describe the benefits and adverse impacts to the human environment of each alternative and the reasons for rejecting it.) Consideration has been given to upgrading the existing Hillcrest Terrace laundry facility to make it ADA -accessible and to prolong its existing use. However, upgrades to the existing facility, while making it ADA accessible, would still not provide a central and conveniently located laundry facility for residents of Hillcrest Terrace. In addition, the existing laundry facility is too small to incorporate a community gathering space for meetings, supportive services, and on-site emergency response gathering place. In addition, RHA would need to seek another location for supplemental maintenance storage if the existing laundry space was refurbished. No Action Alternative [24 CFR 58.40(e)] (Discuss the benefits and adverse impacts to the human environment of not implementing the preferred altemaUve). The No Action Alternative, which is no change to the current laundry facility that is in the original maintenance building, was considered, however, it would not provide an accessible laundry facility meeting ADA requirements for senior and disabled residents of Hillcrest Terrace. The No Action Alternative would continue to provide laundry services in the existing location, which is remote to residents in the northern buildings on the site, there would not be a central facility that could be used for emergency response, social services, and senior nutrition and lunch services. Under the No Action Alternative, residents of Hillcrest Terrace would continue to be isolated without viable community space to gather for meeting, supportive services, and socializing. Mitigation Measures Recommended 124 CFR 58.40(d), 40 CFR 1608.201 (Recommend feasible ways in which the proposal or its external factors should be modified in order to minimize adverse environmental impacts and restore or enhance environmental duality.) 1. Air Quality (Construction -related): The City shall require all construction contractors to implement air quality control plans for construction activities in the project area. The air quality control plans should include best management practices (BMPs) to control fugitive dust and odors emitted by diesel construction equipment. The following BMPs will be used to control fugitive dust. • Use water sprays or other non-toxic dust control methods on unpaved roadways. Minimize vehicle speed while traveling on unpaved surfaces. • Prevent trackout of mud onto public streets. • Cover soil piles when practical. 13 of 16 HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office -- May 2005 • Minimize work during periods of Nigh winds when practical. The following mitigation measures will be used to minimize air quality and odor issues caused by tallpipe emissions. • 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 5:00 a -m, and 4:00 p.m.) would have the least effect on traffic and would minimize indirect increases in traffic related emissions. 2. Aquifer Protection Area, Zone 2: The project site is located within Zone 2 of the City of Renton Aquifer Protection Area (APA). The project applicant will be required to provide a fill source statement as described in RMC 4-8-12OD19 for each source location from which imported fill material will be obtained at the time of engineering permit application as per RMC 4-3-050C.1.a.vi_ and RMC 4-4-060N.4. 3. Stormwater: To meet the flow control requirements, additional stormwater flow control facility is required to control the stormwater runoff from the laundry and resident community building. The facility can be a rain garden, vegetated roof, or infiltration BMPs. 4. Hazardous Materials mitigation measures would consist of the following: • Contractors will 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 will be required to implement best management 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. Additional Studies Performed (Attach studies or summaries) 1. Christopher Hetzel, MA, and J. Tait Elder, MA. 2070. Cultural Resources Survey Report --- Hillcrest Terrace Community Building. November. (ICF 630.10.) Seattle, WA. Prepared for City of Renton, in partnership with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA (Attachment A-1). 2_ Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination for Hillcrest Terrace, November 17, 2010. Prepared by Christopher J. Earle, PhD for Mark Gropper, Executive Director of the Renton Housing Authority (Attachment C). 3. Existing Hazardous Material Conditions at Hillcrest Terrace (14XX block of Hillcrest Lane NE, Renton, WA 08056) Memorandum, November 22, 2010. Prepared by Rachel Chang, CH2M Hill for Lisa Grueter, ICF (Attachment D). 14 of 16 HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office — May 2005 4_ Report of Geotechnical and Infiltration Studies: Proposed Maintenance Building Hillcrest Terrace, May 4, 2010 by S&EE (Attachment E). 5. Stormwater Requirement for Hillcrest Terrace Community Building, November 19, 2010. Prepared by Raymond Chung, CH2M Hilt for Dustin Atchison/SEA (Attachment H). List of Sources, Agencies and Persons Consulted [40 CFR 1508,9(b)) Attachments: Attachment A-1: Cultural Resources Survey Report Hillcrest Terrace Community Building. November 2010 Attachment A-2: Letter from Russell Holter, Washington State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation to Erika Conkling, City of Renton dated December 9, 2010. Attachment B: Coastal Zone Management Consistency Letter and Request from City Attachment C: Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination for Hillcrest Terrace, November 17, 2010. Prepared by Christopher J. Earle, PhD for Mark Gropper, Executive Director of the Renton Housing Authority, Attachment D: Existing Hazardous Material Conditions at Hillcrest Terrace (14XX block of Hillcrest Lane NE, Renton, WA 98056) Memorandum, November 22, 2010. Prepared by Rachel Chang, CH2M Hill for Mark Gropper, Executive Director of the Renton Housing Authority. Attachment E: Report of Geotechnical and Infiltration Studies: Proposed Maintenance Building Hillcrest Terrace, May 4, 2010 by S&EE. Attachment F: Site Plan depiction of proposed structure adjacgnt to existing buildings Attachment G: Project Description Attachment H: Stormwater Requirement for Hillcrest Terrace Community Building, November 19, 2010. Prepared by Raymond Chung, CH2M Hill for Dustin Atchison/SEA. Additional Resources used: 1. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map at: h ttp://re nto n n e t, o rp/i n tern e tapp s/m apslpdf/C ity%20 M aps/. 2-. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, reviewed November 11, 2010, 3. City of Renton critical area maps (wetlands: RMC 4-3-05OQ5). 4. City of Renton Erosion Hazards map at: http://rentonnet.ora/internetaops/maps/pdf/Sensitive°/`20Areas/Erosion%2OHazqd.pdf. 5. City of Renton noise ordinance (Chapter 8-7 of RMC). T� 6. City of Renton website (Human Services) at: http://rentonwa.gov/1iving/default.aspx?id=l 8002. 7. City of Renton zoning map: htt ://rentonnet.or /interneta s/ma s/ dfICit %20Ma s/Zonis df. 8. F.I,R.M, panel number 53033CQ668F, 05-16-95, 9. National Wetlands Inventory's digital wetlands mapper tool: (httpJ/W'A'W.fws.govin,vi/). 10. Fish & Wildlife Service webpage listing designated Coastal Barrier Improvement Areas: httpi.//www.f%vs.gov/liabitatconservation/coastal barrier.htmi. 11. King County SEPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Worksheet, Version 1.7 (December 2007). 12. List of regulated airports at: htt ://wwwa,hud. ov/Jocal/sharediworkin /rlO/environment/airoorts. df. 13. Personal communication with Cory Cappelletti, Renton Fire Department, November 5, 2010, and Rachel Chang, CH2M Hill, November 22, 2010. 14. Personal communication, Grace Kim, Schemata Workshop, November 22, 2010. 15. Personal Communication, Nate Linville, Puget Sound Energy, December 15, 2010. 1$. Personal communication, Jim Wilder, ICF Noise and Air Specialist, November 12, 2010. 17. Renton Housing Authority website at: httpJ/www.rentonhousing.org/. 18. Scenic and Wild Rivers website (http://www.rivers.00v/wildriverslist.html). 19. Seattle -King County Department of Health website at: http://www.kincou n _ ov/heaithservices/health/locations/renton.as x. 15 of 16 HUD Seattle Region Environnnental Office — May 2005 20. U.S. EPA Map of Radon zones website at: http llwww ega aov/radon/states/washingtor.html#zone°/o20m_ gp. 21. U.S. EPA website at: htt :11 osemite.e a. ovlr1alwater.nsfiSole+Source+A uiferslssama�s, 22, U.S. EPA website identifying air quality nonattainment areas at: http:i/epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ancl,htnil. 23. Valley Medical Center website at: http://�Aww.valleymed.org1Locations.htm. 24. Zone 2 of the City of Renton's Aquifer Protection Area (RMC 4-3-05OQ1). 16 of 16 HUD Seattle Recion Envirnrunental Office -- May 2005 ATTACHMENT A CULTURAL RESOURCES ■ . *M"J L#1 �_i_1�� WASHINGTON DAHP CORRESPONDENCE sTnrg o a � STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1083 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 9, 2010 Ms. Ericka Conkling City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 In future correspondence please refer to-- Log: o:Log: 091010-31-HUD-CDBG Property: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea (adding Hillcrest Terrace Apartments) Re: NOT Eligible Dear Ms. Conkling: Thank you for contacting the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). The abovereferenced property has been reviewed on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer under provisions of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) and 36 CFR Part 800. My review is based upon documentation contained in your communication. According to the amended Sunset Terrace Redevelopment (Hillcrest Terrace Community Building Project) two newly surveyed resources are eligible for listing to the National Register of Historic Places. We cannot concur with the findings of your professional consultant. The referenced properties located at Hillcrest Terrace are NOT ELIGIBLE for the National Register of Historic Places under criterion C. As a result of this finding, further contact with DAHP is not necessary. However, if additional information on the property becomes available, or if any archaeological resources are uncovered during construction, please halt work in the area of discovery and contact the appropriate Native American Tribes and DAHP for further consultation. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Russell Halter Project Compliance Reviewer (360) 586-3533 russell.hottcr@dahp.wa.gov �J' DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION —1. Ralect tte Post 5tcpe fhe FutLve Renis Law C1 of Mayors Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator December 6; 2010 Ms, Allyson Brooks, PhD State Historic-Preservation Officer ATTN:'Mr. Russell-Holter Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation :1063 S. Capitol Way, S611te7106 Olympia, WA 98501 - 4 Subject.. Section 106 Review—Hillcrest Terrade Community'SUilding Project' Dear Ms. Brooks and Mr. Holter: The City cf Renton and the Renton Housing Authorityare proposing to use federal {unds, to-construct a new - 2,2Wsquare-foot resident community building with a laundry room at.the. Hillcrest Terrace public housing corr}plex.at 1442,H11.Icrest Lane NE, Renton, Washington. The.6ew conimunity.bulding 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. HOD'is the'le.ad federal agency responsible for cbmpliance with Section.106 of•the National Historic Preservation-A•ct (NHPA):. In accordance with speclfic statutory authority and HUWs' regulations at Section 24 Part58of 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. ICI" international is assisting the City in meeting these requirements, and has conducted a cultural resources survey for the undertaking, The'study comprised an archaeological investigation and a historic resources survey. A copy is attached. It.recorhmends that two buildings in the establishl4Area of Pofentiai Effects (APE)-at 1430-1454 anis 1456--1465 Hillcrest Lane NE in the City of Renton—as NRHP eligible historic properties once they reach an age of 50 years, and that the proposed undertaking would not adversely affect the recommended NRHP-eligible historic properties. Based on these'findings, we have concluded that the' .proposed undertaking would have "no a&efse effect" on the, historic properties in the APE: With this letter, we would' like to initiate formai consultation with you Winder Section 106-of the NHPA and . hereby request your concurrence on the project APE and ourfinding that the proposed project will have no. adverse effect on historic properties. Notice of the undertaking and copies of this documentation have also been provided to the Muckleshoot Iridian Tribe. Thank you for your, assistance with this review.. Please feel free to contact Erika Conkling, AICP at (425) 430- 6518 should.you haVe any questions. .• Renton City Hall i� 1055 South Grady Way i Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Enclosure: Cultural Resources Survey.Regort--Hillcrest Terrace Community Building Denis of Cl o Department of Community and-Economic Development Alex Pietsch,Administrator December 6, 2010 Ms. Virginia'Cross Chairperson of the Muckleshoot Tribal Council Muckleshoot Indian Tribe . 39015 172nd'Avenue 5E• Auburn, WA 98092-9753 Subject: Section 106 R view—Hillcrest Terrace Community Building Project Dear Ms: Cross: The City of Renton and the Renton Horsing Authority are proposing to use federal funds to construct a new 2,20a-square-foot resident community buildingwith a laundry room at the Hillcrest Terrace public housing compleic at 1442 Hillcrest Lana NE,.Renton, Washington: The new community' building will be funded by U: S. Department of Housing'and Urban Development (HUD) capital funds.'per Section 26.of the IJ.S.,Housing Act of 1937 (U,S. Government -Code (USC), title 42, Section 1.437x} 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 suivey forthe undertaking. The study comprised an archaeological investigation and a historic. resources. surrey. A copy is attached_ It recommends that two buildings in the established Area of Potential Effects (APE)—at 143Q=1454 and 1456-1486 HillcrestJ_ane;NE in the Cityof Renton—as NRHP eligible historic properties once they reach an age of 30 years, and that the proposed; u ndertaking would not a6erseiy-affect the recommended NRHP-eligible historic properties. Based on these findings.' we have concluded that the proposed undertaking would'haye "no adverse effect" on the historic properties in the APE: With this lette r,.We. would like to.initiate formal consultation with you under Section 106 of the NHPA, and invite you-to comment Qn our determination of the undertaking's proposed APE-arid our finding that the undertaking would have no adverse effect on historic.ptnperties. We: understand.and respect the sensitive nature of cultural "resources and traditional cultural properties and will.n6t disseminate any specific site or area location information to•thegeneral public.-Such Information will be withheld from any.public documentation prepared for the undertaking. Renton City Hall 1055 South. Grady Way Renton,W851hington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Nis. Virginia Cross Decerr ber 6, 2010 . Page 2 of 2 Thank you for.your assistance with this reyiew. Please feeifreefo contact me.at (425) 430-5578 should you have any questions. Denis Law c1` � of Mayor Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator December 6, 2010 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Cultufal Resources Program Attn: Laura Murphy,-Archaeologist . 39015 172nd-Avenue SE Auburn, WA'98092-9763 Subject: Section 106 Review--Hillcrest Terrace Community Building Project Dear Ms. Murphy:, the City of Renton and the:kenton Housing Authority are proposing to use federal funds to construct a new 2{20D-square-foot resident community building with a laundry room at the Hillcrest Terrace public housing complex at 1443 Hillcrest Lane NE, Renton, Washington. The new community. building will be funded by U: S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) capital funds per Section A 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'compiiance with Section 106-of the National historic Preservation Act (NHPA�- inaccordancawith speck statutoryauthor4 and HUD's regulations at Section 24' " .Part 58 of the -Code of Federal Regulations, the City of Renton is completing the necessai-y environmental review-under the-National Environmental Policy Act and Section 1-06 of the NHPA. ICF International is-assisting the City in meeting these requirements, and has conducted a'cultural resources survey'forthe undertaking. The study comprised an airchaeological investigation and a historic resources survey. A copy is attached,,lt recommends thaftwo "buildings In the established Area of Potential Effects (,APE)—at 1430-1454 and 1456-1486 Hillcrest Lane NE in the City of. Renton--as.NRHP eligible historic propertles once they reach an age of 50,years, and that the proposed undertaking would not adversely affect the recommended,NAHP-eligible historic:properties. Based on these findings, we have concluded thatthe . proposed undertaking would Have "no adverse effect" on the 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 undertakingwould have no adverse effect on historic properties. We understand arid,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.withheid froth any public, documentatiorn prepared for the undertaking. Renton City Hall • 1 o5S South Grady-Way • Renton, Washington 98057 ! rentonwa.gov ' Laura Murphy December 6, 2010, Page 2 of 2 Thank you for your assistance with this review. Please feel'free to contact me at (425) 430-6578 should you have any questions. ' ATTACH ME NT A-2 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT, HILLCREST TERRACE COMMUNITY BUILDING Author: Christopher Hetzel MA and J. Tait Elder MA Title of Report: Cultural Resources Survey Report—Hillcrest Terrace Community Building Date of Report: November 2010 County{les}: Kin _g Section: 9 Township: 23 Range: 5E Quad: Mercer Island 47122-E2 and Renton 47122-D2 Acres: Approximately .1 acres PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) 61 Yes Historic Property Export Files submitted? N Yes F -I No Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? Fl Yes I� No TCP(s) found? F Yes M No Replace a draft? I—I Yes N No Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? F Yes # No DAHP Archaeological Site #: CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT HILLCREST TERRACE COMMUNITY BUILDING PREPARED FOR: City of Renton NEPA Responsible Entity and SEPA Lead Agency Department of Community and Economic Development 1.055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 In partnership with Renton Housing Authority 2900 Northeast 10th Street Renton, Washington 98056 PREPARED BY: Christopher Hetzel, MA, and J. Tait Elder, MA ICF International 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98104 Contact: Christopher Hetzel 206.801.2817 November 2010 I[NTERKAnONAL Christopher Hetzel, MA, and J. Tait Elder, MA. 2010. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Hillcrest Terrace Community Building. November. (ICF 630.10.) 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............................................................................................1-1 RegulatoryContext .......... .......................................................................................... 1-4 Chapter2 Environmental and Cultural Setting................................................................................ 2-1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. ....... 2-1 .................... GeologicBackground .......................................... ....................................................... 2-1 Floraand Fauna.........................................................................................................2-1 CulturalSetting ......................................... .................................................... .......................... 2-2 Precontact.................................................................................................................2-2 Ethnographic and Ethnohistoric................................................................................ 2-2 HistoricContext......................................................................................................... 2-3 Chapter 3 Literature Review and Consultation................................................................................ 3-1 Existing Data and Background Data ........................................... ............................................ 3-1 Records Research.................................................................................. .3-1 ................... Chapter4 Research Design............................................................................................................. 4-1 Objectives and Expectations..................................................................................................4-1 ResearchMethods ............................................. ..................................................................... 4-1 Archaeological Investigations.................................................................................... 4-1 Historical Resources Survey......................................................................................4-4 Chapter5 Results........................................................................................................................... 5-1 Archaeological Investigations................................................................................................. 5-1 Historic Resources Survey...................................................................................................... 5-1 EffectsAnalysis.......................................................................................................................5-1 Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................ 6-1 Chapter7 References..................................................................................................................... 7-1 Appendix A. Geotechnical and Infiltration Study for Hillcrest Community Building Project Appendix B. Historic Property Inventory Forms Appendix C. Unanticipated Discovery Plan Cultural Resources Survey Report November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building I ICF 0059310 City of Renton Contents Tables Table 1. Cultural Resources Surveys within 1 Mile of the Area of Potential Effects ................................ 3-1 Figures Figure 1. Project Location. ........................................... Figure2. Area of Potential Effects................................................................................................................................1-3 Figure 3. Project Site—Looking West.........................................................................................................................4-2 Figure 4. Project Site—Looking Northeast...............................................................................................................4-3 Acronyms and Abbreviations APE Area of Potential Effects APN Assessor Parcel Number BP before present CFR Code of Federal Regulations City City of Renton cm Centimeter DAHP Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation FHA Federal Housing Administration 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 USC United States Code WHR Washington Heritage Register WISAARD Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Database Cultural Resources Survey Report November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building ° ICF 00593.10 Chapter 1 Introduction Project Description The Renton Housing Authority (RHA) is proposing to construct a new 2,200 -square -foot resident community building with a laundry room at the Hillcrest Terrace public housing complex at 1442 Hillcrest Lane NE, Renton, Washington. The structure will provide social gathering and meeting space, a small kitchen for lunches, and appropriate residential coin -op laundry facilities. The complex's current laundry facilities will be relocated from an adjacent maintenance building into the new space. The new community building 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) (16 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 of Renton (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 (ICF) conducted a cultural resources survey for the project to assist the City in fulfilling these requirements. The study comprised an archaeological investigation and a historic resources survey. 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. Melissa Cascella, MA, assisted the Principal Investigators in drafting this cultural resources survey report Location The project location is 1430 Hillcrest Lane NE (Assessor Parcel Number: 7227800140), Renton, King County, Washington, in the Northwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 23, Range 5 East (Figure 1). Area of Potential Effects The Area of Potential Effects (APE) is defined as the geographic area or areas within which the project 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). For this project, the APE consists of the footprint of the proposed new construction plus the two existing buildings at 1456-1486 and 1430-1454 Hillcrest Lane NE, situated to the north and south of the projects ite (Figure 2). Cultural Resources Survey Report November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building �_1 ICF 00593.10 s ; V Power �� eft .. ' • t. �fl i ,`��_), � 1 ; •, �'vIt— '-�,�?� •} ' i • ,i � ' Vii; . _ • r '• `tea! L11� �iZ1 !j• � : •-� W� I rf.J �; • rr' .S °�'- f _j; � +-'d E F 74 7 �'PdriC :? !�� 1St gQTN � `F.• i -.f u: :.� Project Location 61. y my o h Perk `Tt`�" f ` ' '" -• ! !�: m i �rMi\124 ETF ' sun am Area . Potential L24,000 1250 500 1,000 Meters 750 1,500 3,000 Feet;Sourm Mercer and r ®RI Renton , Island 1 _ -> 1CF Figa1 Project Location Cultural Resources Survey Report- Hillcrest Terrace Community Building v. � ' 4 �`' •` -- ti 0 Approximate Building Footprint A7 Area of Potential Effects V. •., ' � lasoo J�� f 0 12.5 25 50 Meters 1 y ,y 0 s0 100 200 Feet _ f Source: 131magery, ESRI '�- Figure 2 ICFArea of Potential Effects Cultural Resources Survey Report - Hillcrest Terrace Community Building Illi :Atl i�'ijblM1L City of Renton Regulatory Context [ntroduction 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 undertaking requires federal funding and 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 project APE, fulfilling the requirements of N EPA and Section 106 of the NHPA, and to assess the potential effects of the project 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 CFA 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.)." 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 state, "Agency officials should ensure that preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FQNSI) or an EIS [environmental impact statement] 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][3]). 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 NEPA; and Section 106 compliance should be coordinated and completed simultaneously with NEPA. This practice is followed in the present analysis. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of funded or approved undertakings that have the potential to impact any district, site, building, structure, or object that is listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP, and to provide the State Historic Preservation Officer, affected tribes, and other stakeholders an opportunity to comment. Although compliance with Cultural Resources Survey Report November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building 1-4 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Introduction Section 106 is the responsibility of the lead federal agency, others can undertake the work necessary to comply. 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 to apply HUD under NEPA, which includes NEPA lead agency responsibility. The Section 186 process is codified in 36 CFR 800 and consists of five basic steps: 1. Initiate process by coordinating with other environmental reviews, consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), identifying and consulting with interested parties, and identifying points in the process to seek input from the public and to notify the public of proposed actions. 2. Identify cultural resources and evaluate them for NRHP eligibility (the process for which is explained below), resulting in the identification of historic properties. 3. Assess effects of the project on historic properties. 4. Consult with the SHPO and interested parties regarding any adverse effects an historic properties; and, if necessary, develop an agreement that addresses the treatment of these properties (e.g., a Memorandum of Agreement [MOA]). 5. Proceed in accordance with the project MOA, if an MOA is developed. 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 protection from destruction or impairment." The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. According to NRHP guidelines, the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that meet any of the following criteria: Criterion A. A property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Criterion B. A property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. Criterion C. A property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Criterion D. A property yields, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 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 Cultural Resources Survey Report 1-5 November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building ECF 00593.10 City of Renton Introdu&on 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 meets one of these criteria, but must also possesses 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: 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 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 $00.5. Cultural Resources Survey Report November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building 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 was modified to accommodate for development, consisting of the existing Hillcrest Terrace public housing complex. Geotechnical borings previously completed on the project site in 2010 revealed a thin layer of topsoil underlain by unweathered glacial till, indicating that sediments had been removed from the ground surface in the recent past The geotechnical report is provided in Appendix A). 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 (Tsuga heterophylla), and western red cedar (Thuja plicata) are the dominant tree species in the region, while 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 (Rubus 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 (Cervus 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 Resources Survey Report 1 November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Cultural Setting Precontact Environmental and Cultural Setting Cultural developments in the Puget Sound area have been summarized by a number of reviewers (Kidd 1964; Greengo and Houston 1970; Felson 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 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 8000 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 o f environments, and utilization of marine resources. Late Period (2,500 BP to European contact). The establishment of large semi -sedentary populations, and 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, hear, 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 vicinity of 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 Lake 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, Cultural Resources5urvey Report November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building 2-2 1CF 00593.10 City of Renton Environmental and Cultural Setting 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, while others remain enrolled with the Duwamish Tribe, although it is not a federally recognized tribe (Duwamish Tribe 2010). Historic Context Early Beginnings 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, along with his family (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 tunnels. 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 important areas of 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; Peirce 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, who had built an enormous and prosperous sawmill on Bainbridge Island, invested heavily in the area's coal Cultural Resources Survey Report 2-3 November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Environmertal and Cultural Setting and transportation industries, allowing 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 backing (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 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 1989:4). 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 first 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; the plant exponentially increased in size through the course of the war (The Boeing Company et al. 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 new masses, 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 (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 in the APE remained largely undeveloped until the 1940s. The area was logged starting in 1883 (Slauson 2006:42) and Primary State Highway 2, later known as the Sunset Highway or State Route 900, was Cultural Resources Survey Report 2-4 November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Environmental and Cultural Setting established south of the APE from 1909 through 1910. The route was first paved in 1920, becoming the principal highway between Seattle and 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 of thousands of workers in the 1940s, however, housing development exploded in the area with many of its existing residential neighborhoods first established during World War IL In order to accommodate the enormous work force, the federal government embarked on a series of housing projects in the area (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 federally loans, grants, and other programs (City of Renton 1989:34). During this early development, the Highlands emerged as the center of housing project development, while the North Highlands evolved with the construction of mixed 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). Hillcrest Terrace Public Housing Complex In the Renton Highlands, federal funding during the postwar period included significant investment in affordable housing. Administered by RHA, this funding led to the construction of several notable public housing complexes, including the Hillcrest Terrace public housing complex (The Seattle Times 1962:33 and 1963:41). Constructed in 1962-1963, Hillcrest Terrace was reported as having been the Pacific Northwest's first low -rent housing project for senior citizens upon its completion. It was constructed by contractor Nelse Mortensen & Company at a cost of $659,925 and designed by the architectural firm Stoddard-Huggard & Associates (Stoddard-Huggard & Associates 1961, The Seattle Times 1962:33). Stoddard-Huggard & Associates is known to have designed several public housing projects for the RHA, including the Sunset Terrace public housing complex {1958-1959) and the Evergreen Terrace public housing complex (1967-1968). Architect Francis E, Huggard, principal of the firm, is credited with the design of Hillcrest Terrace. Huggard's design for Hillcrest Terrace incorporated modernist elements to create compact housing units for elderly residents with focus on accessibility and privacy, while at the same time maximizing the establishment of bright, open living spaces and providing for a sense of community. Each housing unit was equipped with individual alarm systems for when someone might need help, illuminating a red light at the entrance; bathrooms were equipped with special grab bars and low tubs that had a seat; and entrances and hallways were specifically designed with wheelchair accessibility in mind (The Seattle Times 1963:41). In achieving these goals, the architecture appears to have involved an evolution of low -rent housing design away from the influences of the Garden City movement and the characteristics of garden - Cultural Resources Survey Report 2-5 November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building ICF00593.10 City of Renton Environmental and Cultural Setting style apartment construction, which had predominated in most prior public housing projects in the Seattle area (and the western United States) through the 1940s and 1950s. For example, in comparison to the Sunset Terrace public housing complex (located less than a mile south of Hillcrest Terrace and designed by Stoddard- Huggard & Associates in 1958-1959), Hillcrest Terrace has a strikingly different arrangement of housing units around open courtyards and other public spaces. Whereas the Sunset Terrace public housing complex contained traditional one- and two-story Garden style apartment blocks, each building of the Hillcrest Terrace public housing complex contains 16 housing units set in compact groups of eight around two central, open courtyards. From above, this configuration provides each building with the appearance of a figure-eight plan. The plan actually consists of small blocks united by a common roof. The housing units are oriented at varied angles towards the buildings' interior and exterior spaces to maximize privacy in a smaller space. Four units open to each courtyard, with the rest opening outward. The units themselves are set in groups of two and four, separated by covered walkways and corridors to create physical separation between the units, while adequately sheltering them from the sun and weather. The connecting corridors also help create pleasant, usable outdoor space for the building's residents. Each unit also has an open patio, shared with a neighboring unit, accessed by a large sliding glass door and windows, and the courtyards serve as secure communal recreation areas. In addition, the buildings incorporate materials that typified the practicality and efficiency of Modern -style construction at the time, including platform -frame construction with brick -veneer walls, concrete slab foundations, and interior plasterboard ceilings and walls (The Seattle Times 1962.33). RHA replaced the original fenestration at Hillcrest Terrace with new vinyl doors and windows in 2009. The original door and window openings were not altered. Other changes have included the installation of new roofing in 2005, enclosing the buildings' soffits, and upgrading the cabinets, vertical furnaces, and floors in the housing unit interiors. Cultural Resources Survey Report 2-6 November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building 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. No cultural resources have been previously recorded in the APE. Eight 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 resource studies and findings is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Cultural Resources Surveys within 1 Mile of the Area of Potential Effects NADB # Authors/Year Report Title Description Cultural Resources 1339887 Juell 2001 Cultural Literature search None Resources and windshield inventory of the survey of 1-405 proposed corridor. 1352447 Bundy 2008 1351994 Goetz 2008 1353126 Chatters 2009 1349666 Stipe 2007 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 Verizon Wireless SEA Renton Voc- Tech Cellular Tower Cultural Survey of 1-405 corridor and shovel testing. Excavated a total of six shovel probes. Exhumed remains of young male and older probable female from residential area. Records search and pedestrian archaeological survey None None Site 45Ki786; NRHP eligible, but site completely removed through excavation None Cultural Resources Survey Report 3-1 November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building ICF00593.10 City of Renton Literature Review and Consultation NADB # Authors/Year Report Title Description Cultural Resources Resources Review 1349929 Miss 2007 Archaeological Monitoring of None Monitoring for excavated the South Lake trenches. 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 NADB = National Archaeological Database There is one known archaeological site within a 1 -mile radius of the APE. Site 45KI786, known as the 2209 Edmonds Avenue Human Burial, contains two early -twentieth-century graves recovered from a residential property. The graves contained the remains of a young male and older probable female, believed to predate 1943, when a cemetery law was passed prohibiting internment on private property. A house was first built on the property by in 1919. It was torn down in 1941 and not replaced until 1962. [Chatters 2009.] Cultural Resources Survey Report 3-2 November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building ICF00593.10 Chapter 4 Research Design Objectives and Expectations Analysis of geological research previously completed for the undertaking indicates that the APE's surface was modified to accommodate the existing Hillcrest Terrace public housing complex. Geotechnical borings conducted for the project in May 2010 revealed a thin layer of topsoil underlain by unweathered glacial till, indicating that sediments had been removed from the ground surface in the recent past. Additional evidence of this modification was also observed in the drastic change in grade between the APE and the elevation of Kirkland Avenue NE, which bounds the APE on the east (Appendix A). Kirkland Avenue NE is supported by a high retaining wall in this location, built when the eastern portion of the APE was excavated for construction of the public housing complex (Figure 3). Given the examination of the existing archaeological and geologic information, the likelihood for encountering prehistoric archaeological sites was considered very low. No archaeological materials were expected to be encountered, due to the high level of prior ground disturbance in the APE caused by the construction of the existing public housing complex. Research Methods Archaeological Investigations ICF archaeologist, ]. Tait Elder, MA, conducted a pedestrian survey of the APE, which involved walking transects across the APE. The purpose of this survey was to identify any visible evidence of archaeological materials and to examine the APE's physical characteristics pertaining to prior ground disturbance. No shovel tests were excavated, because of the high level of prior ground disturbance known to have occurred in the APE, the type of soils revealed by the prior geological study, and the low probability of the existence of subsurface archaeological materials. Cultural Resources Survey Report 4-1 November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building ICF00593.10 City of Renton Figure 3. Project Site—Looking West Research Design Cultural Resources Survey Report November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building 4.2 ICF 00553.10 City of Renton Figure 4, Project Site—Looking Northeast Research Uesign Cultural Resources Survey Report 4-3 November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Historical Resources Survey Research Design The reconnaissance -level historic resources survey involved examining and photographing the two buildings in the APE determined to be 45 years of age or older, which are parts of the Hillcrest Terrace public housing complex. ICF senior architectural historian, Christopher Hetzel, MA, conducted the survey and evaluated the buildings to determine their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. The construction dates were established by the original construction drawings for the Hillcrest Terrace public housing project and Seattle Times newspaper articles reporting on the complex's design and construction. Photographs were taken of each building and information collected about their physical characteristics, including their architectural style, the type and materials of significant features, and the existence of alterations and overall physical integrity. Both buildings were recorded in the Washington State Historic Property Inventory Database, per DAHP reporting standards. Printed record forms for each property are provided in Appendix B of this report. Cultural Resources Survey Report 4-4 November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building ICF 00543.30 Chapter 5 Results Archaeological Investigations In November 2010, ICF archaeologist J. Tait Elder, MA, conducted a pedestrian survey of the entire APE. Ground visibility was obscured by extensive surface vegetation, consisting of grasses and shrubs, and the constructed components of the Hillcrest Terrace public housing complex (i.e., buildings and sidewalks). No evidence of archaeological materials was encountered. Historic Resources Survey The reconnaissance -level historic resources survey examined the two buildings in the APE, located at 1430-1454 and 1456-1486 Hillcrest Lane NE, to the north and south of the project site. Both buildings were constructed in 1962-1963 as part of the Hillcrest Terrace public housing project, which consists of four buildings total. No other buildings or structures are located in the APE. The buildings at 1430-1454 and 1456-1486 Hillcrest Lane NE were evaluated to determine their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. Based on NRHP criteria for evaluation (36 CFR 60.4), it was determined that these buildings would be considered eligible for the NRHP as contributors to a possible NRHP-eligible historic district encompassing the entire Hillcrest Terrace public housing complex, once they reach an age of 50 years old (approximately in 2012-2013). No other significant cultural resources were identified in the APE. The buildings at 1430-1454 and 1456-1486 Hillcrest Lane NE are considered unique examples of the Modern style in an early 1960s public housing complex. The complex incorporated modernist design tenets for creating compact housing units for elderly residents with focus on accessibility and privacy, while at the same time maximizing the establishment of bright, open living spaces. Designed by architect Francis E. Huggard of the firm Stoddard- Hu gga rd & Associates, the buildings also represents the work of a recognized Seattle architect and is an evolution in design from earlier garden -style public housing complexes in the Seattle area, including the Sunset Terrace public housing complex, located less than a mile south of Hillcrest Terrace and designed by Stoddard- Huggard & Associates in 1958-1959. The two buildings in the APE are considered eligible for the NRHP under criterion C at the local level of significance, because they embody the distinctive characteristics of a type and style of construction and represent the work of a recognized Seattle architect. Effects Analysis ICF completed a review of project construction drawings to determine the potential for the undertaking to impact the two identified historic resources in the APE (Schemata Workshop, Inc. 2010). The currently proposed scope of work involves the construction of a new one-story Cultural Resources Survey Report November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building 5.1 ICF 00593.10 City of Rerton Results community building in the space between the two historic resources, at the location of an existing garden. The garden is not considered an original feature of the property. The new construction will consist of a one-story, 2,200 -square -foot resident community building. The building will have a contemporary design with a long rectangular plan, oriented east -west between the two historic resources. It will have a side -sloping shed roof, nearly equal in height to the existing buildings, and the set back of its west elevation will equal that of the existing buildings from the street. On the north and south, the new construction's side elevations will be set back from the existing buildings by a minimum of 5 feet The setback will be supplemented by the constructed of a masonry wall at the new construction's north elevation, to help screen the structure from neighboring housing units. Based on an analysis of the construction drawings, ICF has concluded that the project does not appear to pose an adverse effect on the identified historic resources in the APE. The project would not have a direct physical impact on the historic resources, and design considerations such as the new construction's height and setbacks help mitigate any effects the new building would have on the integrity of the complex's setting and feel. None of the project elements would diminish the historical significance of the Hillcrest Terrace public housing complex. Possible indirect effects are likewise considered minimal due to the location of the property and the character of the Hillcrest Terrace property, and the surrounding neighborhood. Cultural Resources Survey Report 5-2 November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building ICF 00593.10 Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations Two significant cultural resources were identified in the APE, consisting of the buildings at 1430- 1454 and 1456-1486 Hillcrest Lane NE. The buildings are recommended as NRNP -eligible once they reach an age of 50 years, under criterion C at the local level of significance, as contributors to a possible NRHP-eligible historic district comprising the Hillcrest Terrace public housing project. No other significant cultural resources were identified. Because of prior ground disturbance in the APE, no further archaeological investigation is recommended and the possibility of discovering unknown archaeological resources is considered very low. Based on the results of the cultural resources investigations, the project is not expected to adversely affect the recommended NRHP-eligible historic resources in the APE. A finding of "no adverse effect" is recommended for the undertaking. If archaeological materials are discovered during ground -disturbing excavations, it is recommended that the contractor halt excavations in the vicinity of the find and contact DAHP. For DAHP contact information, see Unanticipated Discovery Plan in Appendix C. If human skeletal remains are discovered, the Icing County Sheriff and DAHP should be notified immediately. If during excavation archaeological materials are uncovered, the proponent shall immediately stop work and notify the City, DAHP, and affected Indian tribes, as outlined in the Unanticipated Discovery Plan provided in Appendix C. Cultural Resources Survey Report 1 November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building 1CF 00593.10 Chapter 7 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 at stuweyugw—Site 45K1464—Tolt River, 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 0nat, 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 HGV 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/documentphp?CISOROOT=/Ictext&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 1 November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building ICF 00593.10 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 1989 Community Profile. Department of Community Development, Long Range Planning Section, 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 16, 2010 Easterbrook, D. J. 2003 Cordilleran Ice Sheet Glaciation of the Puget Lowland and Columbia Plateau and Alpine Glaciation of the North Cascade range, Washington. Pages 137-157 in T.W. Swanson (ed.), Western Cordillera and Adjacent Areas. Boulder, CO; The Geological Society of America. Forsman, L. and D. Lewarch 2041 Archaeology of the White River. White River Journal A Newsletter of the White River Valley Museum. April. Available: <http://www. wr-vmuseum.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. George W. Stoddard- H uggard &Associates 1958 Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington lI-I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington. Construction Plans. George W. Stoddard- Hu ggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, Seattle, WA. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. 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 Vi, Crisca Bierwert, Special Consultation Thom Hess 2001 Ways of the Lushootseed People Ceremonies & Traditions of North Puget Sound First People, Third Edition. Seattle, WA: Lushootseed Press. Cultural Resources Survey Report November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building 7-2 icF oas93.10 City of Renton References Juell, Ken 2001 Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Washington Light Rails Project. N WAA Report WA01-6. Seattle, WA. Prepared by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. Kaehler, Gretchen A., Stephanie E. Trudel, Dennis E. Lewarch, and Lynn L. Larson 2004 Data Recovery Excavations at the Henry Moses Aquatic Center Site (45KI686), Renton, King County, Washington. LAAS Technical Report #2003-09. Prepared by Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited, Gig Harbor, WA, for City of Renton Community Services Kidd, R. S. 1964 A Synthesis of Western Washington Prehistory from 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. Miss, Christian J. 2007 Archaeological Monitoring for the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvement Project, City of Renton, King County, Washington. Prepared by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA, for the City of Renton. Morning Olympian 1909 Survey New Renton Seattle Highway. 30 October. Olympia, WA. Mullineaux, D. R. 1965 Geologic map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Nelson, C. M. 1990 Prehistory of the Puget Sound Region, Pages 481-484 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=/lctext&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?C 1SOROOT=/imisrenton&CIS O PTR=240. Accessed: October 13, 2010. Schemata Workshop, Inc. 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building, 1430 Hillcrest LN NE, Renton, WA 98056, construction drawings. September 9. Prepared for the Renton Housing Authority, Cultural Resources Survey Report 3 November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building ICF 00593.10 City of Renton References The Seattle Times 1959 Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job. 18 March:44. Seattle, WA. 1960 G. W. Stoddard, Architect Since 1920, to Retire. 27 March:32. Seattle, WA. 1967 Obituaries: George W. Stoddard, 29 September: 16. Seattle, WA. Slauson, Morda C. 2006 Renton from Coal to Jets. Renton Historical Society, Renton, WA. Stipe, Frank T. 2007 Verizon Wireless SEA Renton Vac -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, Coil 2007 Native Seattle: Histories from the Crossing -Over Place. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Cultural Resources Survey Report 4 November 2010 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building ICF 00593.10 Appendix A Geotechnical and Infiltration Study for Hillcrest Community Building Project REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL AND INFILTRATION STUDIES PROPOSED MAINTENANCE BUILDING HILLCREST TERRACE RENTON, WA S&EE JOB NO. 1007 MAY 4, 2010 S&EE SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC. 16625 Redmond Way, Suite M 1,24, Redmond Washington 98052. (425) 868-5868 May 4, 2010 Mr. Mark Gropper (mrg@rentonhousing.org) Renton Housing Authority Renton, WA CC: Grace Kim (grace@schemataworkshop.com) Patty Buchanan (PattyB@svrdesign.com) Report of Geotechnical And Infiltration Studies Proposed Maintenance Building 1442 Hillcrest Lane NE Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Gropper: We are pleased to present herewith our Report of Geotechnical and Infiltration Studies for the referenced project. Our services were authorized by you on March S, 2010, and have been provided in accordance with our proposal dated March 4, 2010. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services. Should you have any question regarding the contents of this report or require additional information, please call. A/tlV.—: a3 Very truly yours, SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC. C. J. Shin, Ph.D., P.E. President '-S- �c- / o 1007rpt S&EE TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.0SCOPE 0F SERVICES ... 1 3]SURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................. 2 329UBL0SBED GEOLOGIC INFORMATION --.------.---------..---.--.._--..3 4.0 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND ____—'5 6.1 ONSITE INFILTRATION --'''—_'''--'—'--'---'—''''--''----'—'''—''---5 6.2 FOUNDATION SUPPORT .............................................................................................. ........ .... —.......... 5 6.3 SITE PREPARATION AND STRUCTURAL FILL ............. .... ......................... .......... .................................. 6 6.4SLAB SUPPORT ..................................................... —.—................................................................................ 6 6.5 TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EXCAVATIONS -------.-------------------7 6/SFLEXIBLE PAVEMENT ................................... ............................................................................ ................. ? 6.7 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS .........................................---'''--_''--.'----''--'--'-8 FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATI{JN MAP FIGURE 2:SITE PLAN APPENDIX A: FIELD EXPLORATION LOGS AND KEY APPENDIX B: LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 1007nu i S&EE REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL AND INFILTRATION STUDIES PROPOSED MAINTENANCE BUILDING RENTON, WASHINGTON For Renton Housing Authority 1.0 INTRODUCTION We present in this report the results of our geotechnical and infiltration studies for the proposed maintenance building. The site is located at 1442 Hillcrest Land, NE in Renton. A site Iocation map is shown in Figure 1 which is included at the end of this report. The proposed building is located within an existing apartment complex — Hillcrest Terrace. Exhibit `B", which is included next page shows the apartment complex and the proposed building location. We understand that the proposed building will be one or two-story, wood -framed building with footprint of about 40 feet by 50 feet. Grading will be minimal. For the purpose of our study, we estimate that the maximum column and wall loads will be on the order of 50 kips and 5 kips/ft, respectively. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our study is to develop geotechnical recommendations regarding site development and foundation support. Specifically, our services included: 1. Exploration of soil and groundwater conditions in the proposed building location by the excavation of 3 test pits. 2. Performance of one onsite infiltration test at the proposed building location per 2005 DOE manual. 3. Performance of a laboratory testing program which include Cation Exchange Capacity test and grain size analysis. 4. Engineering evaluation and recommendations regarding onsite infiltration. EXHIBIT "B" 5. Recommendations regarding type of foundation support. 6. Recommendations regarding the use of existing retaining wall as part of the proposed building wall, or the construction of a new wall. 7. Recommendations regarding active and at -rest earth pressures to be used for the design of any retaining structures; soil resistance and coefficient of friction for the resistance of lateral loads. 8. Recommendations regarding temporary and permanent slopes. 9. Recommendations regarding support for slab -on -grade. 10. Recommendations regarding paving design. 11. Recommendations regarding type of soil for seismic design. 12. Recommendations regarding site preparation, including removal of unsuitable soils, suitability of onsite soils for use as fill, fill placement techniques, and compaction criteria. 13. Five copies of a written geotechnical report containing a site plan, test pit logs, a description of subsurface conditions, and our findings and recommendations. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS The proposed building area is currently a grass lawn between existing housing units. The site grade is flat and about b feet below Kirkland Avenue which flanks the east side of the apartment complex. The grade change is made by an existing concrete retaining wall. We understand that this wall has an "L" - shape footing that turns toward the heel side of the wall. Based on the topography of the general area, we believe that the eastern portion of the apartment complex was excavated during its original development. Rpt 1007 2 SME 3.2 PUBLISHED GEOLOGIC INFORMATION Published geologic information (Generalized Geologic Map of Northwestern Ding County, Washington State Department of Natural Resources) indicates that the site area is underlain by glacial till (Qvt). Glacial till is also known as hardpan and the material is a consolidated mixture of sand, gravel, silt and clay. 3.3 TEST PIT FINDINGS The soil conditions underlying the site were explored by the excavation of 3 test pit, TP -1 through TP -3 on April 15, 2010. The approximate locations of these test pits are shown on Figure 2. Details of the field exploration program and the test pit log are included in Appendix A. The test pits encountered consistent subsurface conditions which include a thin (7 to 10 inches) layer of topsoil over very dense glacial till (hardpan). The till consists of cemented silty sand with trace gravel and cobbles. Based on its color (gray) and density, we believe the material is non -weathered till. We further believe that the weathered till, which typically overlying non -weathered till, was removed at the time of the retaining wall construction. No groundwater was encountered in any test pit. The till soil does not contain any sign of groundwater movement within the formation. 4.0 INFILTRATION TEST We performed one onsite infiltration test, IF -1, on April 15, 2010. The approximate test location is shown on Figure 2. The infiltration pit was 30 inches in depth and 2 feet by 4 feet in plan dimensions. The pit encountered same soil conditions as in the test pits. The infiltration test was performed generally according to procedures presented in "Stormwater Management in Western Washington, Volume III, Hydrologic Analysis and Flow Control Design/BAPs, Washington State Department of Ecology, February 2005". The measured infiltration rate was 0.75 inches per hour. Rpt 1007 3 S&EE 5.0 LABORATORY TEST Laboratory tests include gradation and cation exchange capacity (CEC). All test results are included in Appendix B of this report. The gradation test sample was collected at depths of 1.5 to 2.5 feet from infiltration pit IF -1. The sample was transported to our sub -contracted soil laboratory, AAR Testing Lab in Redmond Washington. The CEC sample was obtained at 2 feet depth in IF -1. The sample was sent to our sub -contracted analytical laboratory, SPECTRA Laboratories in Tacoma WA. The gradation test result shows that the soil is a silty sand with gravel. The analytical test results indicate that the soil has a cation exchange capacity of 131 mEq/1008. Cation exchange capacity (CEC) is the capacity of soil for ion exchange of cations between the soil and the soil solution. CEC is used as a measure of fertility, nutrient retention capacity, and the capacity to protect groundwater from cation contamination. Typical minimum CEC for water quality treatment is 5 mEq/100g. Rpt 1007 4 S&EE 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 ONSITE INFILTRATION The site is underlain by relatively impermeable glacial till. We believe that any attempt in storm water infiltration will result in wet and soggy lawn. Also, as the top of till is just below the topsoil, infiltration may have an adverse impact on nearby slab -on -grade. It is our opinion that infiltration of storm water is not feasible and should be avoided. 6.2 FOUNDATION SUPPORT We recommend that the proposed building be supported by conventional spread footings which should be founded on undisturbed glacial till. We further recommend that the existing retaining wall at the east side of the proposed building location be separated from the new building wall. Recommendations for footing design and construction are presented below. Allowable Bearing Loads: Footings may be designed using an allowable bearing load of 3,000 psf (pounds per square feet). This value includes a safety factor of at least 3, and can be increased by one- third for wind and seismic loads. Settlement: Interior column footings designed in accordance with the above recommendations are expected to experience approximately 112 inch of total settlement. Continuous wall footings should experience settlement of about 114 to 112 inch. Differential settlement between adjacent footings is expected to be about 114 inch. The settlement will occur rapidly, essentially as the loads are applied. Lateral Resistance: Lateral resistance can be obtained from the passive earth pressure against the footing sides and the friction at the contact of the footing bottom and bearing materials. The former can be obtained using an equivalent fluid density of 200 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), and the latter using a coefficient of friction of 0.5. These values include a safety factor of 1.5. Footing Construction: Prior to concrete pour, footing subgrade should be cleaned of loose soil cuttings. All footing subgrade should be observed by a qualified geotechnical engineer prior to the placement of rebar and concrete. The engineer should confirm the suitability of the subgrade conditions and provide Rpt 1007 5 S&EE recommendation for further subgrade preparation, if necessary, All exterior footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the adjacent finished grade to provide protection against frost action, and should be at least 18 inches in width to facilitate construction. 6.3 SITE PREPARATION AND STRUCTURAL FILL Site preparation should begin with stripping vegetation and topsoil of the structural areas including the driveway, building and slab. The subgrades should then be thoroughly proof -rolled using heavy construction equipment. Areas which are found to be loose or soft, or which contain organic soils should be over -excavated. A qualified geotechnical engineer should conduct the proof -rolling and to assist in evaluating the over -excavation requirements. After stripping, over -excavation and excavation to the design grade, the top 12 inches of the native soils should be re -compacted to at least 92% of their maximum dry density as determined using ASTM D-1557 test procedures (Modified Proctor test). Structural fill can then be placed in the over -excavation and fill areas. The structural fill materials should meet both the material and compaction requirements presented below. Material Requirements: Structural fill should be free of organic and frozen materials and should consist of hard durable particles, such as sand, gravel, or quarry -processed stone. The on-site glacial soils (hardpan) are suitable for use as structural fill. However, this soil are silty and thus moisture sensitive. As such, they should be moisture -conditioned to within t 2% of their optimum moisture content prior to use. Suitable imported structural fill materials include silty sand, sand, mixture of sand and gravel (pitrun), and crushed rock. Placement and Compaction Requirements: Structural fill should be placed in loose horizontal lifts not exceeding a thickness of 6 to 12 inches, depending on the material type, compaction equipment, and number of passes made by the equipment. Structural fill should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined using the ASTM D-1557 test procedures. 6.4 SLAB SUPPORT Assuming that the site is prepared per recommendations presented above, the slab can be soil -supported. A subgrade reaction modulus of 200 pci (pounds per cubic inches) can be used for slab -on -grade design. Rpt 1007 6 S&EE We envision that the slab subgrade will be disturbed and loosened by construction activities at the time of slab construction. We therefore recommend that the slab subgrade be proof -rolled. Any wet and loose areas should be over -excavated and backfilled with structural fill. In order to promote uniform support and provide a capillary break, we recommend that slabs be underlain by a 6 mil. vapor barrier over a flinch thick layer of free draining gravel. 6.5 TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EXCAVATIONS When temporary excavations are required during construction, the contractor should follow the published safety regulations and be responsible for the safety of their personnel and equipment. The followings cut angles are provided as a general reference. The contractor shall flatten the cut slopes or install shoring if found necessary. For temporary excavations less than 4 feet in depth, the cut bank may be excavated vertically. Cuts in dense glacial till (hardpan) and less than 10 feet in depth may be 112H:1 V. All permanent slopes should be no steeper than 2H:1 V. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slope. Also, all permanent slopes should be seeded with the appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and maintain the slope stability. 6.6 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT We recommend that the subgrade for flexible pavement be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in SITE PREPARATION AND STRUCTURAL FILL. Based on the subsoil conditions, we believe that the prepared subgrade will have a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of at least 15. We therefore recommend the following flexible pavement sections for light and medium traffic conditions: Light traffic (Daily EAL = 5 or less): 2 inches asphaltic concrete over 4 inches base course Medium traffic (Daily EAL = 20 to 80): 3 inches asphaltic concrete over 6 inches base course Rpt 1007 7 S&EE The base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557 test method. The material should meet WSDOT aggregate specification 9-03.9(3) and have the following gradation: Sieve Size Percent Passing 1 '/4 -inch 100 5/8 -inch 50-80 1/4 -inch 30-50 US No. 40 3-18 US No. 200 7.5 max. % Fracture 75 min. 6.7 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS We recommend that site class C as defined in the 2006 IBC be considered for the seismic design. The site is underlain by dense glacial till. As such, the liquefaction potential is negligible. 7.0 CLOSURE The recommendations presented in this report are provided for design purposes and are based on soil conditions disclosed by field observations and subsurface explorations. Subsurface information presented herein does not constitute a direct or implied warranty that the soil conditions between exploration locations can be directly interpolated or extrapolated or that subsurface conditions and soil variations different from those disclosed by the explorations will not be revealed. The recommendations outlined in this report are based on the assumption that the development plan is consistent with the description provided in this report. If the development plan is changed or subsurface conditions different from those disclosed by the exploration are observed during construction, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions, and if necessary, reconsider our design recommendations. Rpt 1 047 8 S&EE Appendix B Historic Property Inventory Forms DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY14J. 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic inventory Report Field Site No. DAHP No. Historic Name: Hillcrest Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: Hillcrest Terrace Public Housing Complex Property Address: 1430-1454 Hillcrest Ln NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227800140 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 04 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1225449 Northing: 797717 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Hillcrest Terrace Community Building Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: 2900 NE10th Street City: Renton State: WA Classificatlon: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: County Quadrangle King MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 11/14/2010 Monday, November 15, 2010 Page 1 of 7 Zip: 98056 44JDEPARIMENr of ARCHAEOLOGY & . hiMDRIC PRESERVATION Description Historic Inventory Report Historic Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan: Other Stories: 1 Changes to Pian: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Intact Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Slight Changes to Windows: Moderate Style: Cladding: Roof Type: hoof Material: Modern Brick Gable Asphalt / Composition Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Study Unit Other Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1963 Built Date Builder: Nelse Mortensen & Company Engineer: Architect: Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:Yes Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): Yes - Local Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): Yes Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Hillcrest Terrace Community Building in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of four buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Hillcrest Terrace public housing complex authorized in 1962 and completed in 1963. Hillcrest Terrace was reported as having been the Pacific Northwest's first low -rent housing project for senior citizens upon its completion. It was constructed by contractor Nelse Mortensen & Company at a cost of $659,925 and designed by the architectural firm Stoddard-Huggard & Associates (Stoddard- Huggard & Associates 1961; The Seattle Times 1962:33). Stoddard-Huggard & Associates is known to have designed several public housing projects for the Renton Housing Authority, including the Sunset Terrace public housing complex (1958-1959) and the Evergreen Terrace public housing complex (1967-1968). Architect Francis E. Huggard, principal of the firm, is credited with the design of Hillcrest Terrace. Monday, November 15, 2010 Page 2 of 7 4JDEPARTMENT Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY 3 L R 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATIDN Huggard's design for Hillcrest Terrace incorporated modernist design elements to create compact housing units for elderly residents with focus on accessibility and privacy, while at the same time maximizing the establishment of bright, open living spaces and providing for a sense of community_ Each housing unit was equipped with individual alarm systems for when someone might need help, illuminating a red light at the entrance, bathrooms were equipped with special grab bars and low tubs that had a seat; and entrances and hallways were specifically designed with wheelchair accessibility in mind (The Seattle Times, 1963:41). In achieving these goals, the architecture appears to have involved an evolution of low -rent housing design away from the influences of the Garden City movement and the characteristics of garden style apartment construction, which had predominated in most prior public housing projects in the Seattle area (and the western United States) through the 1940s and 1950s. For example, in comparison to the Sunset Terrace public housing complex (located less than a mile south of Hillcrest Terrace and designed by Stoddard-Huggard & Associates in 1958-1959) the Hillcrest Terrace public housing complex has a strikingly different arrangement of housing units around open courtyards and other public spaces. Whereas the Sunset Terrace public housing complex contained traditional one and two-story Garden style apartment blocks, each building of the Hillcrest Terrace public housing complex contains 16 housing units set in compact groups of eight around two central, open courtyards. From above, this configuration provides each building the appearance of a figure eight plan. The plan actually consists of small blocks united by a common roof. The housing units are oriented at varied angles towards the buildings' interior and exterior spaces to maximize privacy in a smaller space. Four units open to each courtyard, with the rest opening outward. The units themselves are set in groups of two and four, separated by covered walkways and corridors to create physical separation between the units, while adequately sheltering them from the sun and weather. The connecting corridors also help create pleasant, usable outdoor space for the building's residents. Each unit has an open patio, shared with a neighboring unit, accessed by a large sliding glass door and windows, and the courtyards serve as secure communal recreation areas. In addition, the buildings incorporate materials that typified the practicality and efficiency of Modern style construction at the time, including platform frame construction with brick -veneer walls, concrete slab foundations, and interior plasterboard ceilings and walls (The Seattle Times 1962:33). The Renton Housing Authority removed the original fenestration at Hillcrest Terrace with new vinyl doors and windows in 2009. The original door and window openings were not altered. Other changes have included the installation of new roofing in 2005, enclosing the buildings' soffits, and upgrading the cabinets, vertical furnaces, and floors in the housing unit interiors. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). The Hillcrest Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a recognized Seattle architect. Based on our review, the property is considered eligible for the NRHP as a contributor to a possible NRHP-eligible historic district encompassing the entire Hillcrest Terrace public housing complex under criterion C at the local level of significance. The Hillcrest Terrace public housing complex is considered a unique example of the Modern style in an early 1960s public housing complex and embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type and style of construction. Monday, November 15, 2010 Page 3 of 7 OF 4„IARCHTWEiOUY S Historic Inventory Report . OCOCaY K5TOR€C PRESERVATECN Description of The property contains a one-story 16 unit apartment building constructed as part of the Hillcrest Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1962-1963. It is one of four nearly identical buildings in the complex. The Appearance: building has a north -south orientation, facing west, and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete slab foundation. It is largely characterized by its figure eight plan formed by the placement of housing units around two central, open courtyards, all sharing a common low -pitch gable roof. The roof is covered with composition membrane roofing and features wide overhanging eaves at every other elevation of its 16 -sided design. The building's exterior walls are clad with an original cascade brick veneer. The housing units are set in groups of two and four and oriented at varied angles towards the buildings' interior and exterior spaces. Four units open to each courtyard, with the rest opening outward. Each group of units is separated by covered open corridors with poured concrete walks that help to create physical separation between the units. Each unit also has an open patio, shared with a neighboring unit, recessed beneath the roof's wide overhang. The patios feature slender metal support posts and poured concrete floors, and are accessed from each unit by a large sliding glass doors. Regularly spaced, window openings punctuate the other elevations. The window openings vary in size and feature soldier -course brick sills. The fenestration consists of non -original vinyl sliding windows and sliding doors in original openings. The original windows and doors were replaced in 2009. At the building's west elevation, an entrance courtyard is formed by a low, brick capped masonry wall. A break in the wall's center creates a formal entry to the building, which is defined by free-standing lamp posts set on brick masonry pillars and a simple, free-standing arch over the entrance. The arch is constructed from pairs of slender wood posts and cross beams and has signs displaying the name "Hillcrest Terrace” and the building's unit numbers. Monday, November 15, 2010 Page 4 of 7 NT OF ARCHAE LOGY Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY & 114JHISTORIC PRESERVA00w Major Hanchett, Thomas W. The Other 'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s. In Bibliographic From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century References: American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919. In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977. Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004, The Seattle Times, Housing Units to Cost $659,925. 10 June 1962, Seattle, WA. . For Senior Citizens: $659,925 Project Opens. 9 June 1963, Seattle, WA. Stoddard—Huggard & Associates. Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington 11-2, Hillcrest Terrace, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington. Construction Plans, 27 December 1961. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Monday, November 15, 2010 Page 5 of 7 nFFi- _r,I Photos Historic Inventory Report West Elevation, Looking Northeast 2010 4 West Elevation, Looking East 2010 ...mss;. 1 West Elevation, Looking Northeast 2010 West Elevation, Looking Northeast 2010 Monday, November 15, 2010 Page 6 of 7 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY t. HfSTORIC PRESERVATION 1 Historic Inventory Report South Elevation, Looking North 2010 North and East Elevations, Looking South 2010 West Elevation, Looking Northeast 2010 North Elevation, Looking South 2010 Monday, November 15, 2010 Page 7 of 7 DEPARWENT 7F .� ARCHAEOLOGY 8, �H!STORIC i'RESERYATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. DAHP No. Historic Name: Hillcrest Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: Hillcrest Terrace Public Housing Complex Property Address: 1456-1485 Hillcrest Ln NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227800140 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 04 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1225337 Northing: 797974 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Hillcrest Terrace Community Building Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: 2900 NE10th Street City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: County King Monday, November 15, 2010 Page 1 of 8 Quadrangle MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 11/14/2010 zip: 98056 OEPARTNIENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY.44J. a HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description Historic Inventory Report Historic Use. Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan: Other Stories: 1 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding. Intact Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Slight Changes to Windows: Moderate Style: Cladding: Roof Type: Roof Material: Modern Brick Gable Asphalt/ Composition Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Study Unit Other Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1963 Built Date Builder: Nelse Mortensen & Company Engineer: Architect: Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:Yes Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): Yes - Local Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): Yes Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Hillcrest Terrace Community Building in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of four buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Hillcrest Terrace public housing complex authorized in 1962 and completed in 1963. Hillcrest Terrace was reported as having been the Pacific Northwest's first low -rent housing project for senior citizens upon its completion. It was constructed by contractor Nelse Mortensen & Company at a cost of $659,925 and designed by the architectural firm Stoddard-Huggard & Associates (Stoddard-Huggard & Associates 1961; The Seattle Times 1962:33). Stoddard-Huggard & Associates is known to have designed several public housing projects for the Renton Housing Authority, including the Sunset Terrace public housing complex (1958-1959) and the Evergreen Terrace public housing complex (1967-1968). Architect Francis E. Huggard, principal of the firm, is credited with the design of Hillcrest Terrace. Monday, November 15, 2010 Page 2 of 8 44JE>EPARTMENTOF ARCHnEOi,OGY Q Historic Inventory Report . HISTORIC PRESERVATivN Huggard's design for Hillcrest Terrace incorporated modernist design elements to create compact housing units for elderly residents with focus on accessibility and privacy, while at the same time maximizing the establishment of bright, open living spaces and providing for a sense of community. Each housing unit was equipped with individual alarm systems for when someone might need help, illuminating a red light at the entrance; bathrooms were equipped with special grab bars and low tubs that had a seat; and entrances and hallways were specifically designed with wheelchair accessibility in mind (The Seattle Times, 1963:41). In achieving these goals, the architecture appears to have involved an evolution of low -rent housing design away from the influences of the Garden City movement and the characteristics of garden style apartment construction, which had predominated in most prior public housing projects in the Seattle area (and the western United States) through the 1940s and 1950s. For example, in comparison to the Sunset Terrace public housing complex (located less than a mile south of Hillcrest Terrace and designed by Stoddard-Huggard & Associates in 1958-1959) the Hillcrest Terrace public housing complex has a strikingly different arrangement of housing units around open courtyards and other public spaces. Whereas the Sunset Terrace public housing complex contained traditional one and two-story Garden style apartment blocks, each building of the Hillcrest Terrace public housing complex contains 16 housing units set in compact groups of eight around two central, open courtyards. From above, this configuration provides each building the appearance of a figure eight plan. The plan actually consists of small blocks united by a common roof. The housing units are oriented at varied angles towards the buildings' interior and exterior spaces to maximize privacy in a smaller space. Four units open to each courtyard, with the rest opening outward. The units themselves are set in groups of two and four, separated by covered walkways and corridors to create physical separation between the units, while adequately sheltering them from the sun and weather. The connecting corridors also help create pleasant, usable outdoor space for the building's residents. Each unit has an open patio, shared with a neighboring unit, accessed by a large sliding glass door and windows, and the courtyards serve as secure communal recreation areas. In addition, the buildings incorporate materials that typified the practicality and efficiency of Modern style construction at the time, including platform frame construction with brick -veneer walls, concrete slab foundations, and interior plasterboard ceilings and walls (The Seattle Times 1962:33). The Renton Housing Authority removed the original fenestration at Hillcrest Terrace with new vinyl doors and windows in 2009. The original door and window openings were not altered. Other changes have included the installation of new -roofing in 2005, enclosing the buildings' soffits, and upgrading the cabinets, vertical furnaces, and floors in the housing unit interiors. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). The Hillcrest Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a recognized Seattle architect. Based on our review, the property is considered eligible for the NRHP as a contributor to a possible NRHP-eligible historic district encompassing the entire Hillcrest Terrace public housing complex under criterion C at the local level of significance. The Hillcrest Terrace public housing complex is considered a unique example of the Modern style in an early 1960s public housing complex and embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type and style of construction. Monday, November 15, 2010 Page 3 of 8 .4j OEPAkTMENTOF}RIC Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY S Hf3TCPRESERYATiON Description of The property contains a one-story 16 unit apartment building constructed as part of the Hillcrest Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1962-1963. It is one of four nearly identical buildings in the complex. The Appearance: building has a north -south orientation, facing west, and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete slab foundation. It is largely characterized by its figure eight plan formed by the placement of housing units around two central, open courtyards, all sharing a common low -pitch gable roof. The roof is covered with composition membrane roofing and features wide overhanging eaves at every other elevation of its 16 -sided design. The building's exterior walls are clad with an original cascade brick veneer. The housing units are set in groups of two and four and oriented at varied angles towards the buildings' interior and exterior spaces. Four units open to each courtyard, with the rest opening outward. Each group of units is separated by covered open corridors with poured concrete walks that help to create physical separation between the units. Each unit also has an open patio, shared with a neighboring unit, recessed beneath the roof's wide overhang. The patios feature slender metal support posts and poured concrete floors, and are accessed from each unit by a large sliding glass doors. Regularly spaced, window openings punctuate the other elevations. The window openings vary in size and feature soldier -course brick sills. The fenestration consists of non -original vinyl sliding windows and sliding doors in original openings. The original windows and doors were replaced in 2009. At the building's west elevation, an entrance courtyard is formed by a low, brick capped masonry wall. A break in the wall's center creates a formal entry to the building, which is defined by free-standing lamp posts set on brick masonry pillars and a simple, free-standing arch over the entrance. The arch is constructed from pairs of slender wood posts and cross beams and has signs displaying the name "Hillcrest Terrace' and the building's unit numbers. Monday, November 15, 2010 Page 4 of 8 DEPhRTtisEMOF 14J1Historic Inventory Report f.RCHAEOL4GY S rp5TORIC PRESERV4Ti :N Major Hanchett, Thomas W. The Other'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s. In Bibliographic From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century References: American, John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M, Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J_ No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919. In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Polity and its impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977. Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century_ Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004. The Seattle Times, Housing Units to Cost $659,925. 10 June 1962, Seattle, WA. For Senior Citizens: $659,925 Project Opens. 9 June 1963, Seattle, WA. Stoddard—Huggard & Associates. Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington 11-2, Hillcrest Terrace, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington. Construction Plans. 27 December 1961. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Monday, November 15, 2010 Page 5 of 8 DEPARTMENT OF ARCftAEOLOcr44J. & ISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report West Elevation, Looking Northeast 2010 West Elevation, Looking Northeast 2010 2010 2010 Monday, November 15, 2010 Page 5 of 8 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 1, HISTORIC PRESEB`dgTION West Elevation, Looking North 2010 Historic Inventory Report :.. f ARM A West Elevation, Looking Northeast 2010 West Elevation, Looking Southeast 2010 East Elevation, Looking South 2010 Monday, November 15, 2010 Page 7 of 8 DEPART ARCHAEOLOGY Historic Inventory Report ARCTiAEOtOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATIGN East Elevation, Looking Southwest East and South Elevations, Looking Northwest 2010 South Elevation, Looking Northwest 2010 2010 Monday, November 1S, 2010 Page 8 of 8 Appendix C Unanticipated Discovery Plan Pian and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery of Human Skeletal Remains or Cultural Resources during the Hillcrest Community Building Project 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 Sheriff's 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. 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. Cultura$ Resources Survey Report—Hillcrest Community November 2010 Building C-1 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton 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, 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 39015172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Phone: (253) 876-3272 Appendix C Cultural Resources Survey Report --Potential Sunset Terrace z October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 1CF 00543.10 ATTACHMENT B COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY ATTACHMENT B-1 DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY - COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ATTACHMENT B-1 December 15, 2010 Ms. Erika Conkling City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 RE: Federal Consistency — Hillerest Terrace Community/Laundry Building Dear Ms, Conkling: The Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program received your request regarding the use of federal funds for the construction of a 2, 200 square foot ADA - accessible conununity and laundry building, to be located at 1442 Hillcrest Lane NE, Renton, King County, Washington. Ecology agrees that funding this project is consistent with Washington's Coastal Zone Management Program. Please note that this Consistency Determination is for the release of funds only. Any construction activities will be subject to ALL enforceable polices of the Coastal Zone Management Program, such as the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact Jessica Moore at (360) 407-7421. Sincerely, Brenden McFarland, Section Manager Environmental Review and Transportation Section Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program cc: Jessica Moore, Ecology Cerise, Gilbert From: Moore, Jessica (ECY) [jemo461 a@ECY.WA.GOV] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:33 PM To: Cerise, Gilbert Subject: RE: CZM Federal Consistency process in instances in which there is an EIS Good afternoon Gil, The last sentence in the letter is standard language we include to remind project proponents of any outstanding enforceable policy requirements. Since the Hillcrest Terrace project does not require permits under any enforceable policies, we default to SEPA language. Your summary below (highlighted) is correct and accurately captures our conversation last week. The project proposal submitted for review is consistent with all applicable enforceable policies, if the project changes and triggers a permit or review threshold under an enforceable policy then Ecology will revisit the consistency determination. Let me know if you have any questions or need additional information! Jessica Jessica Moore Federal Permit Unit 5horelands and Environmental Assistance Program Washington Department of Ecology 360.407.7421 iessica,moore@ecy.wa.gov APlease consider the environment before printing this e-mail From: Cerise, Gilbert [mailto:GCerise@icfi.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:13 PM To: Moore, Jessica (ECY) Subject: RE: CZM Federal Consistency process in instances in which there is an EIS Hi Jessica: Thank you for discussing the December 15, 2010 letter regarding Federal Consistency for the Hillcrest Terrace Community/Laundry Building last week. I would like to confirm our discussion relating to the final sentence in that letter, which states: "Any construction activities will be subject to ALL enforceable policies of the Coastal Zone Management Program, such as the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)." As discussed, Renton Housing Authority's project does not trigger any of the SEPA thresholds, and it does not trigger any of the other laws noted on the checklist we sent. So, we had a question about the last sentence in the letter from the City. From our conversation last week, it sounded like the sentence I noted above is there to indicate that if changes occur to the project that do make it trigger a SEPA — or any of the other laws' thresholds, that construction activities must comply with those laws. The intent of that sentence in the letter is not to say that the project as it exists, although it would not trigger SEPA, would need to go through SEPA for the Federal CZM consistency, right? If I have not accurately or clearly summarized the meaning of that sentence per our conversation, would you be able to help me with clarifying it? We want to make sure that this is clarified accurately for the City. Many thanks for your help with this! Have a safe and happy New Year! Gil Cerise, AICP I Senior Planner 1 206.801.2809 1 pcerise5icfi.com I icfi.com ICF INTERNATIONAL 1 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550, Seattle, WA 98104 1 206.801.2899 (fax) From: Moore, Jessica (ECY) [mailto:jemo461@ECY.WA.GOV] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 2:04 PM To: Cerise, Gilbert Subject: RE: CZM Federal Consistency process in instances in which there is an EIS Good afternoon Gil, Loree' Randall asked me to follow-up with you on the CZM questions below. I Will be reviewing the EIS and coordinating with other Ecology staff for the CZM determination. I have provided some information below to hopefully answer your questions? Please let me know if you have additional questions or need more information. Thanks, Jessica 1. Timing: From my review of information on your website, and even looking at the Office of Regulatory Affairs, it appears that we provide the Certification of Consistency with Washington's Coastal Zone Management Program for Federally Funded Activities form (with signatures) to DOE at the time that our DEIS is issued for public comment. I noted under #4 on the form, relating to SEPA, that there is a space to fill in SEPA issuance date for the DEIS, etc. I would check the space for an EIS, and insert the date of DEIS issuance. We will attach the EIS as the supporting documentation on the proposal and its consistency. I want to confirm this timing, and to check to confirm that we will need the Federal certification from DOE prior to FEIS and record of decision. I want to be sure we get this right. Yes, in most instances applicants submit the CZM form and a copy of the draft EIS/EA at the same time to Ecology. This submittal is often coordinated with the public comment period, but some applicants have submitted it after the comment period ends (often waiting in anticipation of a lot of public comment/input). 2. Cells to Check under "State Requirements Being Met" Column on CZM Certification of Consistency Form: As relates to which cell to check for Water Quality, the study area does not include any streams or rivers in it. Water flows into the City stormwater system and new development will need to meet the City's stormwater code and redeveloped properties required to provide water quality treatment for all remaining pollution - generating impervious surfaces, etc. In an instance like this, would the appropriate box to check be "Has a valid permit or certification" since redevelopment will need to meet adopted stormwater code, etc? Or— because the study area does not include work in water or have streams or other water bodies in it, would I mark the first about not requiring a certification or permit? This is how I proposed to mark the Shoreline Management Act row since there are no shorelines in the study area. This is one question where I wonder if we could talk over these aspects of the proposal to ensure I appropriately check the correct cells. Based on the information provided above, I would recommend the following for the Water Quality Question on the CZM form: • Under 2 (a) Water Quality—if there are no stream, creeks, wetlands, ponds, etc., you should check the first box "Does not require...." • Under 2 (b) Stormwater—since the project has not officially received stormwater permitslapprovais.. you should check the last box "Will apply as appropriate..." Same with the SMA requirements, if the project is not within local shoreline jurisdiction, you should check "Does not require..." Feel free to include notes or comments on the form, often times the simple check boxes do not accurately reflect where the project is at in the permitting process or how the permitting will be address in the near term. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Moore. Federal Permit Unit Shorciands and Environmental ,'Assistance Proo mni Washington Department of Ecolo01 ov 360.407.,42 7'? 1 jessica.moore@ec.v,wa.gov ` Please consider the Pnvironment before printing this e-mail ATTACHMENT B-2 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY Coastal Zone Management --•-Washington State Checklist for HUD or Responsible Entity General requirements Y egiislation Reaulation Ensure that projects are consistent Coastal Zone Management Act 15 CFR Part 930 with the Washington Coastal Zone 16 U.S.C. 1451-1464 Manu anent Program 1. 7s the project located in Callam, Grays Harbor, Island, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Masou, Pacific, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston, Wahkiakam or Whatcom Counties? ❑ No: Stop here. The CZM review is complete. Record your determination on the EA, Statutory Worksheet or HUD Form 4128. ® Yes: PROCEED to #2 2. Is the project located on tribal trust lands? ❑ Yes: Tribal Frust land is excluded from the state coastal zone. Proceed to #3. ® No: PROCEED to #4 3. Will the project impact the coastal rune beyond the excluded tribal trust land, for example through water runoff from increased impervious surfaces, or increased sediment loads in waterbodies? ❑ Yes: PROCEED to #4 ❑ No: The Coastal Zone Management review is complete. Document that your project will have no impact on coastal zones outside of the u=luded tribal trust land. Record your determination on the Statatory Worksheet, Environmmtal Assessment form or HUD Form 4126. 4. Does the project include new construction or major rehabilitation of existing structures? Major rehabilitation means work that exceeds the categorical exclusion threshold at 24 CFR Part 58.35(a) and thcmfbm regairos a full Environmental Assessment. ❑ No. STOP here. The Costal Zone Management review is complete. ® Yes: PROCEED to #4 4. Does the project comply with the enforceable polJda of the Coastal Zone Management Program? Complete the attached "Certification of Consistency with Wasbiugton's Coastal Zone Management Program," and send it to the Department of Ecology (DOE) at the following address: Loree Randall, Federal Consistency Procedures Coordinator, Shorelines & Environmental Assistance Program, Department of Ecology, P.O. Sox 47690, Olympia, WA 98504-7690 telephone number: (3 60) 407-6068 or fax it to her at (360) 407fi402. Be sure to identify the Federal. Program, i.e. CDBG, Section 292, SHOP, etc. The Applicant is HUD or the Responsible Entity- The first certification on the forst should be signed by the lender or non-profit organization that is developing the project. HUD (under Part 50) or the responsible entity (under Part 58) signs the determination that the action will not affect coastal resources (once it has been determined that the project will comply with all enforceable policies of the CZM Program). Ecology has 6 months to concur with a determination, however, they often do so within two weeks if all of the information is submitted. ® Yes: STOP here. The Coastal Zone Management Review is complete. Q You should have a mechanism in place (i. e. condition to the contract or FIRM Commitment) to assure the reciplent has completed all actions prior to releasing funds. Attach a copy of the Certification and Consistency determination. Record your determination on the EA, Statutory Worksheet or 4128. ❑ No: Ifthe project will not comply will all enforceable policies as outlined on the Certification of Consistency, work with Department of Ecology to mitigate issues. Do not initiate the Project until CZM has been mitigated. DISCI,.AIl UR --'ibis document is intended as a tool to help HUD Region X grantees and HUD staff complete NEPA requirements. This document is subject to change. This is not a policy statement, and the Coastal Zone Management Legislation and Regulations take precedence over any information found in this document HUD Region X Environmental Office -- January 2010 CERTIFICATION Of CONSWrENCY WTM WASHINGTON'S COASTAL TONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED ACTIVITIES Federal Application Number. WA011 U60002 Applicant: City of Renton (Responsible Entity) . Projed Description: 2,200 EquaTe foot ADA-gSSMslblc coin and proyornity to water body (name)). This action under CZMA§307(cx3) is for a project, which will take place within Washington's coastal zone, or which will affect a land use, water use, or natural resource of the coastal zone. Aire coastalzone includes Clallam, Grays Harbor, Island Jefferson, !Ging Kitsap, Masan, Pacrfie, PiercA Smn Juan, Skagit, Snohomfsk, Ther'ston, iirahkiakum and WAa[com counties.) The project complies with the following enforceable policies ofthe Coastal Zone Management Program: (r-%Kk ihw hnz rinacrlhine the current stator of each policy) * *Public Notice must be provided If the project is within the water or within ZUV feet of a Shoreline Management Act water body. Public Notice is required for the proposed project? Nom Yes (identity method below) ()Erotica mailed to interested parties using mailing list on (date) ( )publication in _ (newspaper) on (dates) ( )other (dates) If public notice is required and you have not provided it, CZM staff will publish the notice. You must not initiate the project until you have been natifiad by CZM, Therefore, I certio that prior to initiating the project I will obtain applicable permits and certifications as described above and the project will be conducted in a maturer consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Program. (5igpature) bate (Rcripient) HUD or its designated Responsible Entity eonoludes this action will not affect coastal resources. The physical uiIE Initiated a alpRilcable R2rmits glad cpXJW!;a1UQnx described e obtained• ne) Date (Sig (HLFD or t (SiB��) Date / ( or Respo le :ttity) (g } Date '1— Le JG (HUD or Responsible ) {SaBnsmue) Date (HUD or Responsible Entity) HUD Region X Environmental Office — January 2010 State requirements have been met Additional info crust be obtained rior'to h icalintthtlou Does not Has received Has a valid Has appliedfor Will apply as Enforceable Policies roquire a certification or permit an exemption permit or certification _ a permit W- certification appropriate for a permit or certlflcation L. Shoreline Management Act •` X L State Water Quality Regntrements: X it. Water Quality R b. Stormwater 3. State Air Quality Requirements X 4. State Environmental Policy Act: SEPA Lead Agency Project is exempt from SEPA ( X) Project will comply with SEPA ( } SEPA checklist submitted {) date SEPA decision issuedladopteti ( )DNS ()MANS ()EIS ( )Other date NHPA decision adopted by ()SEPA # datn * *Public Notice must be provided If the project is within the water or within ZUV feet of a Shoreline Management Act water body. Public Notice is required for the proposed project? Nom Yes (identity method below) ()Erotica mailed to interested parties using mailing list on (date) ( )publication in _ (newspaper) on (dates) ( )other (dates) If public notice is required and you have not provided it, CZM staff will publish the notice. You must not initiate the project until you have been natifiad by CZM, Therefore, I certio that prior to initiating the project I will obtain applicable permits and certifications as described above and the project will be conducted in a maturer consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Program. (5igpature) bate (Rcripient) HUD or its designated Responsible Entity eonoludes this action will not affect coastal resources. The physical uiIE Initiated a alpRilcable R2rmits glad cpXJW!;a1UQnx described e obtained• ne) Date (Sig (HLFD or t (SiB��) Date / ( or Respo le :ttity) (g } Date '1— Le JG (HUD or Responsible ) {SaBnsmue) Date (HUD or Responsible Entity) HUD Region X Environmental Office — January 2010 InTj) or Responsible Entity mail Form to: Department of Ecology please mail Determination of L oree Randall Consistency to: (include Phone number of contact) Shorelines & Environmental Assistance Program Federal Consistency Procedures Coordinator Renton Department of Community and Economic Department of Ecology Development P.O. Sox 47690 ATTN: Erika Conkling, AICP Olympia, WA 98504-7690 1055 S. Grady way Fax: (360) 407-6902 Renton, WA 98057 Phone: (360) 407-6068 Phone: (425)430-6578 Fax: (425)430-7300 Email: econkling(]a rentonwa.gov n HUD Region X ) <rtvirotrmental Office —January 2014 ATTACHMENT C ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT NO EFFECT DETERMINATION 1CF INTERNATIONAL January 26, 2011 Mr. Mark Gropper Executive Director Renton Housing Authority P.Q. Box 2316 Renton, WA 98056-0316 Subject: Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination for Hillcrest Terrace Dear Mr. Gropper: The potential for the Hillcrest Terrace project to affect species protected by the Endangered Species Act was evaluated using the HUD's "Endangered Species Act No Effect Guidance for Washington State," available on the internet at ht www. d. ov local shared workin r10 envir nment n an ers eci sact nide. df. The relevant questions identified in that guidance are addressed below: 1. Does the project consist solely of the following activities: purchasing existing buildings; completing interior renovations to existing structures; replacement or repairs to existing roofs (not including galvanized material unless it has been sealed or otherwise confined so that it will not leach into stormwater); replacing exterior paint or siding on existing buildings; adding sprinkler systems or repairing landscape, not including removing trees or shrubs? Response: No. The project includes construction of a new structure, the community and laundry building. 2. Does the project consist solely of the any of the following activities and not result in an increase of impervious surface, removal of trees, or removal of streamside vegetation: rehabilitation of an existing structure; reconstruction or repair to existing curbs, sidewalks or other concrete structures; repairs to existing parking lots (for example repairing pot holes or repainting lines — not expansions); purchasing or installing appliances? Response: No. The project site consists of lawn and an impervious walkway. The lawn would be replaced by the impervious roof of a building. This would cause an increase in impervious surface. No streamside vegetation would be removed or otherwise affected. The project also includes construction activities that exceed the scope of the question. 711 South Capitol Way, Suite 504 Olympia. WA 98501 — 360,357.4400 360.357.4573 fax � idi.com Mark Gropper January 26, 2011 Page 2 of 5 3. If new construction, does construction occur on a previously developed parcel and meet all of the following criteria: does not add new impervious surfaces; does not remove trees or streams i de/riparian vegetation; complies with all state and local building codes and stormwater regulations; infiltrates all stormwater or does not discharge stormwater to a salmonid -bearing stream or proposed/designated critical habitat. Response: No. The project does add new impervious surface, and the project would remove a tree. However, the project occurs on a previously developed parcel, complies with all state and local building codes and stormwater regulations, and meets stormwater discharge/infiltration criteria as detailed below. 4. If new construction, does construction add new impervious surfaces to a previously developed parcel and meet all of the following criteria: does not remove trees or streamside/riparian vegetation; complies with all state and local building codes and stormwater regulations; discharges treated stormwater to non- salmonid -bearing stream within the same subbasin (discharge point must be a minimum of 1/4 mile from salmonid bearing stream or proposed/designated critical habitat) or infiltrates all treated stormwater within the same subbasin. Response: No. The project would remove an ornamental tree of a non-native species, located in an existing lawn in a fully developed area, which is approximately 20 feet tall. The project would not discharge stormwater to a salmonid -bearing stream, as here detailed: Species protected under the Endangered Species Act under National Marine Fisheries Service jurisdiction that occur in King County are identified at t//www.nwr,tloaa.goy/"ESA-Sairnon- Lis ins and include Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead. The only stream potentially containing these species in the project area is Johns Creek, which 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 habitat'. The project area is located approximately one-half mile east of johns Creek, and stormwater originating from the project area is discharged to the Johns Creek stormwater system. The stormwater analysis for the proposed project identifies the site as having an existing impervious surface area of 1,000 to 1,500 square feet and the proposed project as having a new plus replaced impervious surface area of 3,950 square feet. The City of Renton Code requires stormwater flow control for the proposed project. The project is required to meet the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard2 which requires matching the developing peak discharge rates to existing site conditions peak discharge rates for 2-, 10-, and 100 -year return periods. To meet the flow control requirements, facilities must mitigate runoff 1 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. 2 City of Renton, 2009 Surface Water Manual Amendment, Reference 11-A. Mark Gropper January 26, 2011 Page 3 of 5 from the new impervious surface that is not fully dispersed. The stormwater runoff from the concrete walkway and patio area assumes to be sheet flow to the adjacent lawn area and dispersed. The total impervious area without the walkway area is 3250 sq. Assuming the existing impervious surface area is only 1,000 sf, the new impervious surface is approximately 2250 sf. None of the new impervious surface is accessible to vehicular traffic and thus it is not pollutant-generating3. The City of Renton requires that for a project of this size, there must be a flow control BMP implemented for at least 10% of the total project impervious area. This requirement will be met by using pervious pavement for the proposed patio, an area of 520 square feet. Site runoff change from the existing condition would in no case exceed 0.03 cfs4. Thus the project would not result in increased runoff relative to current conditions and would not have the potential to change pollunant loading relative to current condition; accordingly there is no potential to affect salmon in Johns Creek. 5. Would project effects, including those that extend beyond the project site (e.g., noise, air pollution, water quality, stormwater discharge, visual disturbance), overlap with identified federally listed or proposed species occurrences or designated or proposed critical habitat or potential habitat (e.g., roosting, feeding, nesting, spawning, rearing, overwintering sites, or migratory corridors) for listed species? Response: No. Distributions of salmonids in project vicinity, and absence of potential effects to these species, are detailed above. Species protected under the Endangered Species Act under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction are identified at httl2: /Zwww.fws.gov/wilfwglspeciesrnal2/KingOB261 O.df and include Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout, Canada lynx, gray wolf, grizzly bear, marbled murrelet, and northern spotted owl. The distribution of bull trout is identified atttp_//www.streamnet.org. It does not occur in the project vicinity. A query of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Species database further showed that none of the named species, nor any designated or proposed critical habitat for the named species, occurs within the area of the project and its effects. Thus, none of these species overlap with potential project effects. Therefore, in accordance with HUD's "Endangered Species Act No Effect Guidance for Washington State," the project would have No Effect on listed or proposed species, and designated or proposed critical habitat. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries is not required. 3 Hillcrest Terrace Environmental Assessment, Attachment H. 4 E-mail, January 24, 2011, from N. Reidy, civil designer, SvR Design Co., Seattle, WA, to Patty Buchanan, civil engineer, SvR Design Co., Seattle, WA. Mark Gropper January 26, 2011 Page 4 of 5 Sincerely, Christopher J. Earle Senior Fisheries Biologist Attachment: Stormwater Calculations cc: Erika Conkling, Senior Planner, City of Renton Mark Gropper January 26, 2011 Page 5 of 5 Attachment: Stormwater Calculations From: Nathaniel Riedy Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 6:07 PM To: Patty Buchanan Cc: Matt Suhadolnik Subject: RE: Hillcrest laundry bldg Patty, I had Bill take a look at my pervious/impervious surface numbers and back check them. Based on the City of Renton Amendments to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual our project will be required to submit for full drainage review, A preliminary run of KCRTS indicates that the change in runoff rates during a 100 -year peak run off event from the existing to the proposed condition is less than 0.1 cfs, so the project is exempt from the requirement to provide a flow control facility. However the project is required to provide a flow control BMP for 10% of the impervious area. We propose to use pervious concrete for the hack patio and the front entrance walk (sidewalks would remain King County standard.) In total approximately 520 square feet. This exceeds the 10c/lo requirement which would be approximately 400 square feet. Site run off change from the existing to the proposed condition is less than 0.03 cfs. \atirarniel Riedv F.I.T. ciNii drsk-,ncr SvR Dtsirn Company It) 1 €.=l)6.2''.li? ATTACHMENT D EXISTING HAZARDOUS MATERIAL CONDITIONS AT HILLCREST TERRACE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL Date: November 22, 2010 To: Mark Gropper, Executive Director Renton Housing Authority Cc: Lisa Grueter/ICF Roger Masan/CH2M HILL From: Rachel Chang/CH2M HILL Subject: Existing Hazardous Material Conditions at Hillcrest Terrace (14XX block of Hillcrest Lane NE, Renton, WA 98056) This memorandum summarizes existing hazardous material conditions on and near the Hillcrest Terrace development site. Existing Conditions Site History The project site has been in use as multifamily housing since 1965. Prior to that time, the project site was undeveloped. There are no known prior land uses on the site which would constitute a threat to environmental health to humans. Nearby Environmental Health Conditions A review of state and federal contamination and clean-up data bases was conducted to identify any potential nearby risks to environmental health. In addition, a review of an Environmental Health EDR Report (Sunset Terrace Senior Housing Center Development, Sunset Lane NE at NE 10th St, Renton, WA 98056, Inquiry Number: 2826208.2s, July 28, 20 10) was conducted to identify and document any potential nearby environmental health hazards. EPA Superfund National Priorities and the CIERCLA List A review of the U.S. EPA Washington Cleanup Sites did not identify any EPA Superfund National Priorities List sites near the subject property. The EDR identified one National Priorities List (NPL) site within 1 mile of the study area- Pacific Car and Foundry, located at 100 North 4th Street in Renton. However, this site is approximately 1.2 miles southwest of the Hillcrest Terrace project site. Hazardous Materials Conditions Near Hillcrest Terrace November 22, 2010 Page 2 of 5 Washington State Landfills or Solid Waste Sites Based upon a review of the U.S. EPA Enviromapper, the closest landfill or solid waste site is the King County Solid Waste Division Renton Transfer Station (Renton Highlands landfill) located at 3021 NE 4th Street, located approximately 1.4 miles south of the site. Underground Storage Tanks A search of Washington State registered underground storage tanks indicated that one exists just south of the Hillcrest Terrace property at the North Highlands Community Center (3000 NE 16th Street). This is the closest potential environmental health hazard recorded. Other nearby underground storage tanks include the following, all of which exist within a mile (to the south and/or west) of the proposed site: Table 1. Underground Storage Tanks within 1 Mile of the Project Site Site Address North Highlands Community Center 3000 NE 161h Street 1C Mart 2801 NE Sunset Blvd Rite Aid Store 5203 3116 NE Sunset Boulevard McKnight Middle School 2600 NE 12th Street Sunset Boulevard Shell Station 2800 NE Sunset Boulevard Friendly Fuels, Inc. 1190 Sunset Boulevard NE, Suite F Renton Marine 900 Harrington Avenue NE Renton Fire Station (former site) 901 Harrington Avenue NE Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information (RCRAInfo). RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. RCRAInfo includes selective information on sites that generate, transport, store, treat, and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by RCRA. Federal RCRA Generators List. The RCRA Generators List includes facilities identified as small -quantity generators (SQGs) and large -quantity generators (LQGs) of hazardous wastes. The wastes handled are separated into non- acute hazardous waste and acutely hazardous waste. (State Dangerous Waste regulations define hazardous and dangerous waste and acute hazardous and dangerous waste.) SQGs are defined as those generating less than 100 kilograms (2 20 pounds) per month of non-acute hazardous waste or less than 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of acute hazardous waste. LQGs generate at least 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) per month of non-acute hazardous waste or 1 kilogram per month of acutely hazardous waste. Conditionally exempt SQGs generate less than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kilogram of acutely hazardous waste per month. Hazardous Materials Conditions Near Hillcrest Terrace November 22, 2010 Page 3 of 5 The RCRA-SQGs, RCRA-LQGs, RCRA-CESQGs (conditionally exempt SQGs), and RCRA non -generators (RCRA-NonGen, which are former hazardous waste generators) within 1 mile of the proposed project are identified on Table 2. Table 2. RCRA Generators of Hazardous Waste within 1 Mile of the Project Site Type of Generator Site Name Address RCRA-SQG Colpetts Development 936 Harrington Avenue NE RCRA-CESQG Renton Highlander Center Inc 2806 NE 10th Street RCRA-NonGen Cleaning Shoppe 2830 Sunset Blvd NE RCRA-NonGen Highlands One Hour Cleaners Inc 2808 NE10th Street RCRC-NonGen Plaid Pantries Inc 2801 Sunset Blvd NE RCRA-NonGen ConocoPhillips 2705509 3002 Sunset Blvd NE RCRA-NonGen Renton Marine 900 Harrington Avenue NE RCRA-LQG Daniels Drycleaners Sunset Blvd 3155 NE Sunset Blvd RCRA-CESQG Busy Bee Cleaners 3164 Sunset Blvd NE SQG = small -quantity generator CESQG = conditionally exempt small quantity generator LQG = large -quantity generator NonGen = former As can be seen from a review of the addresses, none of these sites are located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Washington State Confirmed or Suspected Contaminated Sites List The Washington State CSCSL sites located within 1 mile of the Hillcrest Terrace project site are presented in Table 3. These sites have been identified by Ecology as having confirmed or potentially contaminated environmental media, which can include soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, and air. Contaminants identified at these sites include one or more of the following: petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic carbons, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Sites that have received a no further action (NFA) determination are also listed in the table below. Table 3. Washington State CSCSL Sites within 1 Mile of the Project Site Site Address Database Learning Center 4101 NE Sunset Blvd CSCSL JC Mart 2801 NE Sunset Blvd CSCSL-NFA ConocoPhillips 2705509 3002 Sunset Blvd NE CSCSL-NFA Arco #4400 3123 NE Sunset Blvd CSCSL-NFA CSCSL = confirmed or suspected contaminated site list NFA = no further action Hazardous Materials Conditions Near Hillcrest Terrace November 22, 2010 Page 4 of 5 Washington State Independent Clean -Up Report (ICR) and Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) Sites The Washington State ICA and VCP sites found within one mile of the Hillcrest Terrace project site are presented in Table 4 below. These sites include previously contaminated sites where Ecology has received reports on site clean-up actions. These clean-up actions have been conducted independently by the owners or operators of these sites, and Ecology has not formally overseen these actions. Table 4. Washington State ICR and VCP Sites within 1 Mite of the Project Site Site Address JC Mart 2801 NE Sunset Blvd ConocoPhillips 2705509 3002 Sunset Blvd NE Arco #4400 3123 NE Sunset Blvd Explosive and Flammable Hazards Explosive and flammable hazards such as presence of above ground tanks that are greater than 100 gallons have not been identified within 0.25 mile of the project site. Summary of Existing Conditions A review of available data relating to hazardous materials indicates that the only hazardous material sites within 0.25 -mile radius of the project site are an underground storage tank at the North Highlands Community Center property adjacent to Hillcrest Terrace to the south (approximately 0.1 miles from the proposed building), and an underground storage tank at McKnight Middle School (approximately 0.25 miles from the proposed building). Potential Impacts The two hazardous material sites located within 0.25 -mile radius of the project site, the USTs at the North Highlands Community Center property and McKnight Middle School, are not expected to have an impact on the project unless there is previously undiscovered release from the USTs. Any development project has the potential for accidental release of a hazardous substance (e.g., fuels and oils needed for heavy equipment operation and maintenance) during construction. Cleaning the spilled material and disposing of wastes from the clean-up, including contaminated soil, could add additional time and costs to construction operations. Large spills of hazardous materials during construction could also require emergency response agency intervention. Hazardous Materials Conditions Near Hillcrest Terrace November 22, 2010 Page 5 of 5 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures would consist of the following: • Contractors will 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 will be required to implement best management 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. ATTACHMENT E REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL AND INFILTRATION STUDIES REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL AND INFILTRATION STUDIES PROPOSED MAINTENANCE BUILDING HILLCREST TERRACE RENTON, WA S&EE JOB NO. 1007 MAY 4, 2.010 S&EE SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC. 16625 Reftond Way, SukM 124 Redmonj Washington 98052 425 868-5868 May 4, 2010 Mr. Mark Gropper (mrg@rentonhousing.org) Renton Housing Authority Renton, WA CC: Grace Kim (grace@schemataworkshop.com) Patty Buchanan (PattyB@svrdesign.com) Report of Geotechnical And Infiltration Studies Proposed Maintenance Building 1442 Hillcrest Lane NE Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Gropper: We are pleased to present herewith our Report of Geotechnical and Infiltration Studies for the referenced project. Our services were authorized by you on March 5, 2010, and have been provided in accordance with our proposal dated March 4, 2010. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services. Should you have any question regarding the contents of this report or require additional information, please call. Very truly yours, SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC. C. J. Shin, Ph.D., P.E. President �P-�/--/ D 1007rpt S&EE TABLE QPCONTENTS Section p me_ %.0SCOPE OF I 3.\SURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................. 2 32PUBLISHED GEOLOGIC INFORMATION -----------------------_.----.—.3 4.0 INFILTRATION 3 6,1 ONSITE INFILTRATION ............ ................................................................................................................... 5 82 FOUNDATION SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................... 5 6.3 SITE PREPARATION AND STRUCTURAL FILL .......................................................................................... 6 6.4SLAB SUPPORT ........................................................................... ................................................................... 6 6.5 TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EXCAVATIONS.................................................................................... ? 6.6FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT .................................................................................................................................. 7 6.7 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ----'.--..---''--'-----''--''''—_'--'''--'-8 FIGURE l - SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2:SITE PLAN APPENDIX A: FIELD EXPLORATION LOGS AND KEY APPENDIX Bk LABORATORY TEST RESULTS REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL AND INFILTRATION STUDIES PROPOSED MAINTENANCE BUILDING RENTON, WASHINGTON For Renton Housing Authority 1.0 INTRODUCTION We present in this report the results of our geotechnical and infiltration studies for the proposed maintenance building. The site is located at 1442 Hillcrest Land, NE in Renton. A site location map is shown in Figure 1 which is included at the end of this report. The proposed building is located within an existing apartment complex — Hillcrest Terrace. Exhibit `B", which is included next page shows the apartment complex and the proposed building location. We understand that the proposed building will be one or two-story, wood -framed building with footprint of about 40 feet by 50 feet. Grading will be minimal. For the purpose of our study, we estimate that the maximum column and wall loads will be on the order of 50 kips and 5 kips/ft, respectively. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our study is to develop geotechnical recommendations regarding site development and foundation support_ Specifically, our services included: 1. Exploration of soil and groundwater conditions in the proposed building location by the excavation of 3 test pits. 2. Performance of one onsite infiltration test at the proposed building location per 2005 DOE manual. 3. Performance of a laboratory testing program which include Cation Exchange Capacity test and grain size analysis. 4. Engineering evaluation and recommendations regarding onsite infiltration. EXHIBIT "B" 5. Recommendations regarding type of foundation support. 6. Recommendations regarding the use of existing retaining wall as part of the proposed building wall, or the construction of a new wall. 7. Recommendations regarding active and at -rest earth pressures to be used for the design of any retaining structures; soil resistance and coefficient of friction for the resistance of lateral loads. S. Recommendations regarding temporary and permanent slopes. 9. Recommendations regarding support for slab -on -grade. 14. Recommendations regarding paving design. 11. Recommendations regarding type of soil for seismic design. 12. Recommendations regarding site preparation, including removal of unsuitable soils, suitability of onsite soils for use as fill, fill placement techniques, and compaction criteria. 13. Five copies of a written geotechnical report containing a site plan, test pit logs, a description of subsurface conditions, and our findings and recommendations. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS The proposed building area is currently a grass lawn between existing housing units. The site grade is flat and about 6 feet below Kirkland Avenue which flanks the east side of the apartment complex. The grade change is made by an existing concrete retaining wall. We understand that this wall has an "L" - shape footing that turns toward the heel side of the wall. Based on the topography of the general area, we believe that the eastern portion of the apartment complex was excavated during its original development. Rpt 1007 2 S&EE 3.2 PUBLISHED GEOLOGIC INFORMATION Published geologic information (Generalized Geologic Map of Northwestern Ding County, Washington State Department of Natural Resources) indicates that the site area is underlain by glacial till (Qvt). Glacial till is also known as hardpan and the material is a consolidated mixture of sand, gravel, silt and clay. 3.3 TEST PIT FINDINGS The soil conditions underlying the site were explored by the excavation of 3 test pit, TP -I through TP -3 on April 15, 2010. The approximate locations of these test pits are shown on Figure 2. Details of the field exploration program and the test pit log are included in Appendix A. The test pits encountered consistent subsurface conditions which include a thin (7 to 10 inches) layer of topsoil over very dense glacial till (hardpan). The till consists of cemented silty sand with trace gravel and cobbles. Based on its color (gray) and density, we believe the material is non -weathered till. We further believe that the weathered till, which typically overlying non -weathered till, was removed at the time of the retaining wall construction. No groundwater was encountered in any test pit. The till soil does not contain any sign of groundwater movement within the formation. 4.0 INFILTRATION TEST We performed one onsite infiltration test, IF -I, on April 15, 2010. The approximate test location is shown on Figure 2. The infiltration pit was 30 inches in depth and 2 feet by 4 feet in plan dimensions. The pit encountered same soil conditions as in the test pits. The infiltration test was performed generally according to procedures presented in "Stormwater Management in Western Washington, Volume III, Hydrologic Analysis and Flow Control Design/BWs, Washington State Department of Ecology, February 2005". The measured infiltration rate was 0.75 inches per hour. Rpt 1007 3 S&EE 5.0 LABORATORY TEST Laboratory tests include gradation and cation exchange capacity (CEC). All test results are included in Appendix B of this report. The gradation test sample was collected at depths of 1.5 to 2.5 feet from infiltration pit IF -1. The sample was transported to our sub -contracted soil laboratory, AAR Testing Lab in Redmond Washington. The CEC sample was obtained at 2 feet depth in IF -1. The sample was sent to our sub -contracted analytical laboratory, SPECTRA Laboratories in Tacoma WA. The gradation test result shows that the soil is a silty sand with gravel. The analytical test results indicate that the soil has a cation exchange capacity of 131 mEq/100g. Cation exchange capacity (CEC) is the capacity of a soil for ion exchange of cations between the soil and the soil solution. CEC is used as a measure of fertility, nutrient retention capacity, and the capacity to protect groundwater from cation contamination. Typical minimum CEC for water quality treatment is 5 mEq/100g. Apt 1007 4 S&EE 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 ONSITE INFILTRATION The site is underlain by relatively impermeable glacial till. We believe that any attempt in storm water infiltration will result in wet and soggy lawn. Also, as the top of till is just below the topsoil, infiltration may have an adverse impact on nearby slab -on -grade. It is our opinion that infiltration of storm water is not feasible and should be avoided. 6.2 FOUNDATION SUPPORT We recommend that the proposed building be supported by conventional spread footings which should be founded on undisturbed glacial till. We further recommend that the existing retaining wall at the east side of the proposed building location be mparated from the new building wall. Recommendations for footing design and construction are presented below. Allowable BearingLFootings may be designed using an allowable bearing load of 3,000 psf (pounds per square feet). This value includes a safety factor of at least 3, and can be increased by one- third for wind and seismic loads. Settlement: Interior column footings designed in accordance with the above recommendations are expected to experience approximately 112 inch of total settlement. Continuous wall footings should experience settlement of about 1/4 to 112 inch. Differential settlement between adjacent footings is expected to be about 1/4 inch. The settlement will occur rapidly, essentially as the loads are applied. Lateral Resistance: Lateral resistance can be obtained from the passive earth pressure against the footing sides and the friction at the contact of the footing bottom and bearing materials. The former can be obtained using an equivalent fluid density of 200 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), and the latter using a coefficient of friction of 0.5. These values include a safety factor of I.S. Footing Construction: Prior to concrete pour, footing subgrade should be cleaned of loose soil cuttings. All footing subgrade should be observed by a qualified geotechnical engineer prior to the placement of rebar and concrete. The engineer should confirm the suitability of the subgrade conditions and provide Rpt 1007 5 S&EE recommendation for further subgrade preparation, if necessary. All exterior footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the adjacent finished grade to provide protection against frost action, and should be at least 18 inches in width to facilitate construction. 6.3 SITE PREPARATION AND STRUCTURAL FILL Site preparation should begin with stripping vegetation and topsoil of the structural areas including the driveway, building and slab. The subgrades should then be thoroughly proof -rolled using heavy construction equipment. Areas which are found to be loose or soft, or which contain organic soils should be over -excavated. A qualified geotechnical engineer should conduct the proof -rolling and to assist in evaluating the over -excavation requirements. After stripping, over -excavation and excavation to the design grade, the top 12 inches of the native soils should be re -compacted to at least 92% of their maximum dry density as determined using ASTM D-1557 test procedures (Modified Proctor test). Structural fill can then be placed in the over -excavation and fill areas. The structural fill materials should meet both the material and compaction requirements presented below. Material Requirements: Structural fill should be free of organic and frozen materials and should consist of hard durable particles, such as sand, gravel, or quarry -processed stone. The on-site glacial soils (hardpan) are suitable for use as structural fill. However, this soil are silty and thus moisture sensitive. As such, they should be moisture -conditioned to within t 2% of their optimum moisture content prior to use. Suitable imported structural fill materials include silty sand, sand, mixture of sand and gravel (pitrun), and crushed rock. Placement and Compaction Requirements: Structural fill should be placed in loose horizontal lifts not exceeding a thickness of 6 to 12 inches, depending on the material type, compaction equipment, and number of passes made by the equipment. Structural fill should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined using the ASTM D-1557 test procedures. 6.4 SLAB SUPPORT Assuming that the site is prepared per recommendations presented above, the slab can be soil -supported. A subgrade reaction modulus of 200 pci (pounds per cubic inches) can be used for slab -on -grade design. Rpt 1007 6 S&EE We envision that the slab subgrade will be disturbed and loosened by construction activities at the time of slab construction. We therefore recommend that the slab subgrade be proof -rolled. Any wet and loose areas should be over -excavated and backfilled with structural fill. In order to promote uniform support and provide a capillary break, we recommend that slabs be underlain by a 6 mil. vapor barrier over a 4 -inch thick layer of free draining gravel. 6.5 TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EXCAVATIONS When temporary excavations are required during construction, the contractor should follow the published safety regulations and be responsible for the safety of their personnel and equipment. The followings cut angles are provided as a general reference. The contractor shall flatten the cut slopes or install shoring if found necessary. For temporary excavations less than 4 feet in depth, the cut bank may be excavated vertically. Cuts in dense glacial till (hardpan) and less than 10 feet in depth may be 112H:IV. All permanent slopes should be no steeper than 2H:1 V. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slope. Also, all permanent slopes should be seeded with the appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and maintain the slope stability. 6.6 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT We recommend that the subgrade for flexible pavement be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in SITE PREPARATION AND STRUCTURAL FILL. Based on the subsoil conditions, we believe that the prepared subgrade will have a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of at least 15. We therefore recommend the fallowing flexible pavement sections for light and medium traffic conditions: Light traffic (Daily EAL = 5 or less): 2 inches asphaltic concrete over 4 inches base course Medium traffic (Daily EAL = 20 to $0): 3 inches asphaltic concrete over 6 inches base course Rpt 1007 7 S&EE The base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557 test method. The material should meet WSDOT aggregate specification 9-03.9{3} and have the following gradation: Sieve Size Percent Passing I '/-inch 100 518 -inch 50-80 114 -inch 30-50 US No. 40 3-18 US No. 200 7.5 max. % Fracture 75 min. 6.7 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS We recommend that site class C as defined in the 2006 IBC be considered for the seismic design. The site is underlain by dense glacial till. As such, the liquefaction potential is negligible. 7.0 CLOSURE The recommendations presented in this report are provided for design purposes and are based on soil conditions disclosed by field observations and subsurface explorations. Subsurface information presented herein does not constitute a direct or implied warranty that the soil conditions between exploration locations can be directly interpolated or extrapolated or that subsurface conditions and soil variations different from those disclosed by the explorations will not be revealed. The recommendations outlined in this report are based on the assumption that the development plan is consistent with the description provided in this report. If the development plan is changed or subsurface conditions different from those disclosed by the exploration are observed during construction, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions, and if necessary, reconsider our design recommendations. Rpt 1007 8 S&EE ATTACHMENT F SITE PLAN DEPICTION OF PROPOSED HILLCREST TERRACE LAUNDRY AND COMMUNITY STRUCTURE W LD O OD C377 Q U a� 4- a) a) o co o� L Q LU a z cm J Q U O a - CO Q ff E w c< U W LD O OD C377 Q U a� 4- a) a) o co o� L Q LU a z cm J Q U O a +1L P m m� s E 3 � 6J 5� s 2- a_ a cc ya b 3 m = `8 to 7E __w��� :�gssE==O2o� �a?NH s�SsNNw���c, NNW g» >s �gii 3W313- sig= o e t7, mks"a Sic 31 HE 5�s x�c=��F is Wg= gx�a��oamsm?�a� aSe�A0000����_�n LLo b� Cc n w o cow CCS � Eo - s - D � co o fI1 U t Li ro b -D C7 m K MLLUMO V L MPA 1C Co4icc m h - , CD : �m I� - ------------------- Qa - JIol CD =u d k < 4 / , / I i , : �m I� - ------------------- J ------------- CO (D a U I M a a--' O fl c/o Vi Et O N Er m ¢ a t aai w B SFS -- fl Ig O N Er m ¢ a t S U CA LLJ{ -- fl a -- fl LLJ{ (Q 4 C CCN r 0 Z ' IQ uY g� wj F 141 o__ U F Z CD o� m q - 141 o__ Co U O - cO - ca= CQ 6 2 M - 4� _ 'k O ::3 Aral �s � - - 6 2 M - 4� Aral � 0 LLLJJJ Y I J � El.. 14, Co r CG � � 0 to A EL U xi 39 I m U r � m to A EL m - z C� U O - < m ,9 o-- o- 0 0 O A EL o-- o- 0 0 O 7 / _ CD � # G � � \7,� �� f CO = : co / _ CD / fy CD CD C-) m CO wCINJ o 6 9 � Eo C/3 E a - R E cn mLJ € wCINJ o 6 9 � ATTACHMENT G HILLCREST TERRACE LAUNDRY AND COMMUNITY BUILDING PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Development Term Sheet (Term Sheet) is to be filled out by the PHA as part of a complete Development Proposal and submitted to the local HUD Field Office for review. The HUD Field Office staff will present the proposal to the Development Project Review Panel. 24 CFR 941.304 identifies the following minimum standards that must be included in each proposal. Enter the data where indicated on the Term Sheet or, where noted below attach the appropriate document. For easy identification, label any attachments with the letter corresponding to the relevant section of the Term Sheet. A. Project Description - (24 CFR 941.304(x): Provide basic project information and describe the proposed housing. Include number and type of units and amount of non -dwelling space. Indicate which units will be ADA compliant (see Form HUD -52483-A) B. Description of Development Method - (24 CFR 941.304(b): Describe the overall development method and the demonstrated PHA ability and experience to successfully use the method. 1. Turnkey Method — must submit board certification (24 CFR 941.304(b)) 2. Acquisition Method 3. Mixed Finance Method 4. Force Account C. Site Improvements - (24 CFR 941.304(c): Provide a description of the site and community details for the specific development under review. D. Project Cost and Categories of Cost - (24 CFR 941.304(d): Provide a detailed budget of all cost on Form HUD -52484 and Total Development Cost ("TDC"), (see Notice PIH 2008-47). F. Financial Feasibility (24 CFR 941.304(f): Provide a development Proforma (see Form HUD - 52485) that identifies all sources of funds with amounts including those for a reasonable contingency. G. Zoning (24 CFR 941.304(g): Provide evidence that the type of project being proposed is allowable or if re -zoning is necessary, that approval is likely and, it won't delay the project. H. Facilities (24 CFR 941.304(h): Provide a statement on Agency letterhead addressing the adequacy of existing facilities/services. identify the need for any improvements and funding source and amount. Also attach local community support letters. 6 o W W WI Page 1 of 11 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL SUMMARY used for relocation. K. Project Development Schedule - (24 CFR 941.304(k): - Provide a copy of the development schedule. L. Environmental Assessment - (24 CFR 941.304(1): - Provide all environmental information (see 24 CFR Part 50 or Part 58). O. Additional HUD -Requested Information - (24 CFR 941.304(o): In order to clarify a point and/or be in compliance with 24 CFR 941.305, a PHA must submit in a timely manner any information needed to complete the review of the development proposal. Page 2 of 11 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL SUMMARY A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION - (24 CFR 941.304(a)) Proposal Overview Instructions: Provide a brief narrative that describes the specific project to be reviewed. Include the following information: Name of PHA: Renton Housing Authority Name of Hillcrest Terrace, WA011000002 S -F 187, Laundry and Resident Community Building Development: Contact Name: Mark Gropper Contact Phone No: 425-226-1850 ext. 223 Narrative: Hillcrest Terrace 1442 Hillcrest Ln NE, Renton WA 98056 in the Renton Highlands is a 60 -unit ground -related low-income conventional public housing property constructed in 1965. These one bedroom apartments house seniors and disabled residents with an average age of 68 years and primary source of income from Social Security and SSL The laundry room lacks ADA features, has poor proximity, and being adjacent to the maintenance shop would serve as ideal supplemental maintenance space in view of the eventual redevelopment of Sunset Terrace. Moreover, a viable community space for Hillcrest residents to gather for meetings, supportive services, and to socialize is conspicuously absent. Without a common area residents are isolated. The residents were wholly inadequately supported during extended power outages of recent winters. To this end the space will act as a location for emergency response, social services, senior nutrition and lunch services, as well as a newly constructed laundry in an inviting, accessible, and safe arrangement_ Instructions: Complete the following overall unit count and mix type table for the project. Also identify the number of ADA compliant units of each type in brackets (x). Unit Distribution: Studio IBR 2BR 3BR 4BR 0 BR Row -Walk-up Elevator Detached Total Non -Dwelling Space and Usage Page 3 of 11 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL SUMMARY Instructions: For each non-residential building planned, complete the following table for the project. Building Name/Use(s) Gross Square Feet Hillcrest Terrace, Laundty and Resident Community Building 2,200 Page 4 of 11 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL SUMMARY Development Design Plans Instructions: Provide building plans including individual residential unit plans and any non-residential uses; Building sections and elevations as appropriate to convey the massing, scale and finishes of the completed project; and supporting documentation or outline specification supporting the use of higher energy and water efficiency standards in building construction than the Model Energy Code including the use of Energy Star appliances. Building Plans Attached Date Approved Yes 0 No 0 Turnkey Method B. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT METHOD - (24 CFR 941.304(b)) Instructions: Complete the table below that describes the overall development method to be utilized. Provide a brief narrative that demonstrates ability and experience for one of the following: Development Method Description/Narrative Describe AbilitylExperience Turnkey Method Resident community building to be erected between Yes El No 0 Acquisition Method two existing public housing structures on a Mixed Finance Method $600,000 estimated cost, financed with WA011 agency Capital Fund Program grants and unrestricted cash reserves. A&E services provided by Schemata Workshop. RFP bid -bonded construction process. Force Account Method C. SITE IMPROVEMENTS - (24 CFR 941.304(c) Instructions: Attach an overall project site plan with location map(s) identifying the site area and street, the main street area and local services, landmarks and amenities in the nearby area. Note: PHA must control site for a minimum of 60 days after proposal submission. Site Address Description Site Plan Attached Resident community building to be erected between Yes El No 0 1442 Hillcrest Ln NE, Renton WA two existing public housing structures on a 98056 contiguous flat, full infrastructure serviced parcel. D. PROJECT COSTS & CATEGORIES OF COST - (2.4 CFR 941.304(d)) Instructions: Provide a detailed budget that includes all project related cost. Total development Total Uses Per Unit Cost Amount and Detailed Bud et Page 5 of 11 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL SUMMARY Cost ("TDC") Total Sources (TDCtTotal Units) Type of Federal Provided Funds $ $ $ $ Yes 0 No LL Instructions: Provide a certified copy of a third party appraisal for the site or property to be developed. Appraisal Attached Date of Appraisal flame of Third Party Appraiser/Company Yes L No Ll $600,000 estimated cost F. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY - (24 CFR 941.304(1)) Instructions: List all funding sources, dollar amounts, date funds will be available, and amount to be set-aside for contingency and its source. Funding Source Approval Date Amount Contingency $600,000 estimated cost WADI 1 Capital Fund 2009, 2010, and 2011 $300,000 Unrestricted cash Program grants Unrestricted Project $100,000 Reserves WA01100002 ($100,0001$530175.63), Unrestricted Reserves $200,000 Cedar River Terrace PHA -4 ($200,000/$1,845,481.59 Unrestricted reserve $600,000 balances are as of month closing July 31, 2010. G. ZONING - (24 CFR 941.304(g)) Instructions: Provide local zoning requirements that show the construction and/or rehabilitation project being proposed is within the appropriate zoning laws/ordinances. if it is not within current zoning requirements, attach an analysis showing that approval is likely and provide the timeline for the process. Proposed Project is Within Current Zoning Requirements Yes El No As of Date): Page 6 of 11 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL SUMMARY H. FACILITIES - (24 CFR 941.304(h)) Inslruclions: Provide a statement* on Ageney letterhead that addresses the adequacy of existing facilities and services and that provides a description of the following: Public Improvents Needed MiAGFIty School Enrellement Srheole Ability to Absorb Farmintmes Statement Provide Yes L No 0 Yes G No D Yes D No D Yes D No Date: *Describe in statement and include amount and source offends Page 7 of I I DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL SUMMARY Instructions: Provide a statement on Agency letterhead that certifies that the Agency will adhere to and comply with all Federal relocation requirements. Statement Provide Yes 7- No 0 Date: Instructions: If proposed project is an acquisition with only minor rehabilitation lease skip section J. Life Cycle Analysis and move on to Section K. If proposed project is new construction and/or substantial rehabilitation attach a statement providing the criteria to be used for analyzing the heating and cooling systems which shall include costs for installation, maintenance and operations. New GonstructionstSubstantial Rehabilitation Yes Ll No 11 K. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE - (24 CFR 941.304(k)) Page S of 11 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL SUMMARY Instructions: PHA's must submit a development schedule*, which identifies the dates associated with the start and completion of the development and each major component. The following should be incorporated, as applicable into any Development Schedule: Activity Date Start Date Complete A Predevelo ment Phase 1) Solicitation 2 Board Approval of Contractor 2 Environmental Assessment 3 Acquisition 4 Architectural/En ineerinn 5 Secure Financing 6 Construction Permits B) Releeffti-fi Phase C Demolition/Remediation Phase D Construction Phase 1) Site/Infrastructure Improvements 2 Building Construction 3 Completion 4) Lease -up *Full Development Schedule should be provided L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - (24 CFR 941.304(t)) Instructions: Provide all environmental informational. Include the responsible entity (See 24 CFR Part 58 or 24 CFR Part 50 if HUD); HUD Form -7015.16 (if applicable); date of approval; and if some or all items are categorically excluded. Environmental Information Included with Proposal Yes ❑ No 0 Responsible Entity: Date: M. OCCUPANCY & OPERATION POLICIES (.14 CFR 941.304(m)) Instructions: Identify/certify all PHA policies and practices that contribute to the overall objective of promoting economic independence and eliminating economic isolation for low-income people. CertificationlPolicy Approval Included with Proposal Yes 0 No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Date: Page 9 of 11 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL SUMMARY Instructions: If the proposal includes new construction, provide evidence of compliance with Section 6(h) of the Act by one of the two methods below. If not, skip this section. Method Describe Compliance PHA Comparison of Cost Lack of Available Existing Housing___ O. ADDITIONAL HUD -REQUESTED INFORMATION — (24 CFR 941.304(o) Instructions: In narrative form, provide any additional information on the project and business terms of which HUD should be aware when reviewing the terms for this phase. Including the following: • Unusual programs or fee structures HUD will need to evaluate; • Market • Other circumstances that will result in unusual terms ; or • 504 Plan: • Evidence of inclusion into PHA Plan: e0astfuet, TT7T • Site and Neighborhood Standards: This review is to be completed by the HUD Field Office per 24 CFR 941.202 utilizing the site and other information you provide in the proposal. Page 10 of I I DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL SUMMARY The following chart summarizes the components of the mixed -finance proposal and indicates in what form the component should be addressed: Development Proposal Section/Subsection Where to Address Regulatory Citation Project Description Term Sheet 24 CFR 941.304(a) of Development Term Sheet 24 CFR 941-304(b) -Description Site Improvement Term Sheet 24 CFR 941.304(c) Project Cost Term Sheet 24 CFR 941.304(d) and Pa ment Schedule Term Sheet 24 CFR 941.304(d)2 -Budget Appraisal Additional Information Submission 24 CFR 941.304(e) Financial Feasibility Term Sheet 24 CFR 941.304( Zoning Additional Information Submission 24 CFR 941.304(8) Facilities Additional Information Submission 24 CFR 941.304(h) Relocation Additional Information Submission 24 CFR 941.304(1) Life Cycle Analysis Additional Information Submission 24 CFR 941.3040) and section 13 of the Act 42 U.S.C. 1437K Project Development Schedule Term Sheet & Additional Information Submission 24 CFR 941.304(k) Environmental Assessment Additional Information Submission 24 CFR 941.304(1) Occupancy and operation Additional Information Submission 24 CFR 941.304(m) -policies New Construction Certifications Additional Information Submission 24 CFR 941.304(n)l and 2 Additional HUD Requested Information Term Sheet & Additional Information Submission 24 CFR 941.304(o) Page 11 of 11 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL SUMMARY 116 4. ^ ` �• _ S 6 .4 �a F m 4 S. _ YYYYYYYYYYW WYY�YY�YY11�f� f k ` µ. ATTACHMENT H STORMWATER REQUIREMENT FOR HILLCREST TERRACE COMMUNITY BUILDING TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL Stormwater Requirement for Hillcrest Terrace Community Building PREPARED FOR: Dustin Atchison/SEA PREPARED BY: Raymond Chung COPIES: Roger Mason/ SEA DATE: November 19, 2010 PROJECT NUMBER: 408314 Hillcrest Terrace Community Building Stormwater Requirements Background The Hillcrest Terrace Community Building is located between Kirkland Ave. and Hillcrest lane NE in the Hillcrest Neighborhood which is currently owned and operated by City of Renton HUD. The project site is located within the Johns Creek Basin. The existing site is currently a garden area with concrete walking path and plantings. The existing impervious area is approximately 1,000 to 1,500 sf. In existing conditions, the stormwater runoff from the site will either infiltrate or drain west to Hillcrest Lane and then into a storm drain system on Kirkland Ave S. This new community building has footprint of 3950 sf of impervious area including the building roof and concrete patio and walkways. This new community building will remove the existing impervious area and re-establish the building on the area. Flow Control Requirements The City of Renton Code requires flow control for proposed redevelopment project with more than 2,000 sf of new plus replaced impervious surface area. The community center project has 3950 sf of new plus replaced impervious service area. Therefore, the project will need stormwater flow control. There is no known drainage problem on-site or downstream of the project site. The project will be required to meet the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard' which requires matching the developing peak discharge rates to existing site conditions peak discharge rates for 2-,10-, and 100 -year return periods. Water Quality Treatment Requirements The City of Renton Code requires water quality treatment for proposed redevelopment projects with more than 5,000 sf of new and replaced pollutant -generating impervious surfaces and/or 35,000 sf of new pollutant -generating pervious surfaces. Since the 1 City of Renton, 2009 Surface Water Manual Amendment, Reference 11-A. ATTACHMENT-H-HiLLCRESTTERRACECOMMU N ITYCENTER-STORMWATERREQUI REMENTS COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONF€I)ENTIAL STORMWATER REQUIREMENT FOR HILLCREST TERRACE COMMUNITY BUILDING community center roof and the walkway area is not considered pollutant -generating impervous surface and the landscaping area is not considered pollutant -generating pervious surfaces, this project does not require water quality treatment. Meeting Flow Control Standards To meet the flow control requirements, facilities must mitigate runoff from the new impervious surface that is not fully dispersed. The stormwater runoff from the concrete walkway and patio area assumes to be sheet flow to the adjacent lawn area and dispersed. The total impervious area without the walkway area is 3250 sq. Assume the existing impervious surface area is only 1,000 sf, the new impervious surface is approximately 2250 sf. Peak Flow Rate Control Standard Area Exceptions: Flow control facility will be waived if the new impervious and pervious surface will generate no more than 0.1 cfs increase in the existing site conditions 100 -year storm event. Using Rational method with a 100 -year rainfall intensity of 3.64 in/hr, runoff coefficient of 0.9 and 2250sf of surface, the increase in peak flow rate is 0.17 cfs. This exceeded the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard Area exception of not exceeding 0.1cfs for the 100 -year storm event. Flow control facility is required. Flow Control BMPs In the conceptual drawings, 5 rain barrels were shown. Rain Harvesting using rain barrels qualify as a Flow control BMP facility sizing credit. However, the rain harvesting system should at least collect 95% of the average annual runoff volume from the roof area. The typical average runoff depth in King County is 30 inches. The storage capacity for five 55 - gallon rain barrels is 37 cf which equivalent to collecting 15 sf of roof area. The BMP sizing credit may be obtained is minimum. To meet the flow control requirements, additional stormwater flow control facility is required to control the stormwater runoff from the community center. The facility can be a rain garden, vegetated roof, or infiltration BMPs. ATTACHMENT -H_111 LLCRESTTERRACECOMMUNITYCENTER_STORMWATERREQUI REMENTS COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 1 CITY OF RENTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP Additional Resources Exhibit 1 Issaquah - Bellevue j I r 1 Mercer Islani t i •� Newcastle \ ! A 4 sE \ Ityka 1f'ashirtgfon Seattle 5R� 1 � •y' 1 & h •��, 51 j i221 a 51 € E L i Ne "w' I _ f j a Z as 90aA Ir 81 .4o .405 "'F•f �e� '' l arRr s ���� 9_ oft F i w2m-lt TL n �r Tukwila�,�.- is . A SR 167 I .Ay 6ldsk std 7171 #' J 655h 2 41-1 ( P�nll4 rrkc \ --- i \ * Kent LaAe Youngs � Updated by Ordinance #5499 Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Map and effective as of November 16, 2009 I! 0 0.5 1 Land Use Designations Employment Designations Commercial Designations �Miles Residential Designations EAI - Employment Area IrWvatrial - Cc - i Comdor 1.SO,00t] RLD- Rasiaemial Low Densly -_CN- EAV - Employment Area Valley G--1 Neghborhood i - RI?sitlemial 6ledium Density Center Designations - GOR - Commercial-Dfrice-Residemial Community & Economic Development RMF-Re5ldemlalMul family cV- CerterVJlage Boundaries Alm Plcl3elt, Administrator Adrian A. Johnson, Dail AnalysislMapping Services i-k'esidenbal Single Family i.Urban Gems Downtown E-71 city Limits r City of rr t* i - Urban Cenler North PAASochry - -re ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 2 CITY OF RENTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (EXCERPT) Additional Resources Exhibit 2 Amended 12/48/08 Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Excerpt of Goals and Centers Sections LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS Plan for future growth of the Urban Area based on regionally developed growth forecasts, adopted growth targets, and land capacity as determined through implementation of the Growth Management Act. 2. Minimize risk associated with potential aviation incidents on the ground and for aircraft occupants. 3. Promote annexation where and when it is in the best interest of Renton. 4. Maintain the City's natural and cultural history by documenting and appropriately recognizing its historic and/or archaeological sites. S. Pursue the transition of non -conforming uses and structures to encourage more conforming uses and development patterns. 6. Develop a system of facilities that meet the public and quasi -public service needs of present and future employees. 7. Promote new development and neighborhoods in the City that: a) Contribute to a strong sense of community and neighborhood identity; b) Are walkable places where people can live, shop, play, and get to work without always having to drive; c) Are developed at densities sufficient to support public transportation and make efficient use of urban services and infrastructure; d) Offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age, income, and lifestyle; e) Are varied or unique in character; f) Support "grid" and "flexible grid" street and pathway patterns where appropriate; g) Are visually attractive, safe, and healthy environments in which to live; h) Offer connection to the community instead of isolation; and i) Provide a sense of home. S. Develop well-balanced attractive, convenient, robust commercial office, office, and residential development within designated Centers serving the City and the region. 9. Support existing businesses and provide an energetic business environment for new commercial activity providing a range of service, office, commercial, and mixed use residential uses that enhance the City's employment and tax base along arterial boulevards and in designated development areas. Amended 12/08/08 10. Achieve a mix of land uses including industrial, high technology, office. and commercial activities in Employment Areas that lead to economic growth and a strengthening of Renton's employment base. IX -2 Amended 12108?08 X. CENTERS Goal: Develop well-balanced attractive, convenient, robust commercial office, office, and residential development within designated Centers serving the City and the region. Discussion: The Centers category of land use includes two areas of the City, the Center Village in the Highlands and the Urban Center located in the historic downtown and the employment area north to Lake Washington. The Urban Center includes two sub -areas: Urban Center- Downtown (220 acres) and the Urban Center -North (3 10 acres). Together these two areas are envisioned to evolve into a vibrant city core that provides arts, entertainment, regional employment opportunities, recreation, and quality urban residential neighborhoods. The Renton Urban Center is envisioned as the dynamic heart of a growing regional city. Renton's Urban Center will provide significant capacity for new housing in order to absorb the city's share of future regional growth. This residential population will help to balance the City's employment population and thereby meet the policy directive of a 2:1 ratio of jobs to housing. The Center Village designation is envisioned as a revitalized residential and commercial area providing goods and services to the Greater Highlands area. The area could potentially become a focal point for a larger area, the Coal Creek Corridor, connecting Renton to Newcastle and Issaquah. While development is envisioned at a smaller scale than expected in the Urban Center, the Village Center will still focus on urban mixed-use projects with a pedestrian -oriented development pattern. Objective LU -NN: Encourage a wide range and combination of uses, developed at sufficient intensity to maximize efficient use of land, support transit use, and create a viable district. Policy LU -183. Promote the innovative site planning and clustering of Center uses and discourage the development of strip commercial areas. Policy LU -184. Phase implementation of development within Centers to support economically feasible development in the short term but also provide a transition to achieve new development consistent with long term land use objectives. Policy LU -185. Continue development of transit -oriented development in the activity node established by the downtown transit facility. Policy LU -186. Designate Center boundaries according to the following criteria: 1) The boundary should coincide with a major change in land use type or intensity; 2) Boundaries should consider topography and natural features such as ravines, hills, and significant stands of trees; 3) Boundaries should occur along public rights-of-way including streets or utility easements, or at rear property lines where justified by the existing land use pattern. Boundary lines should not be drawn through the interior of parcels; and 1X-34 Amended 12108108 4) As a maximum distance, the boundary should be drawn within a walkable distance from one or two focal points, which may be defined by intersections, transit stops, or shopping centers. Policy LU -187. Designate Centers in locations with the following characteristics: 1) A nucleus of existing multi -use development; 2) Potential for redevelopment, or vacant land to encourage significant concentration of development; 3) Center locations should be located on major transit and transportation routes; 4) Center locations should be served by the City's arterial street system. Policy LU -188. Change adopted boundaries only in the following circumstances: 1) The original mapping failed to consider a major natural feature or significant land use that would make implementation of the boundary illogical, or 2) The amount of land within a Center is inadequate to allow development of the range and intensity of uses envisioned for the Center. Policy LU -189. Support new office and commercial development that is more intensive than the older office and commercial development in existing Centers in order to create more compact and efficient Centers over time. Policy LU -190. Allow stand-alone residential development of various types and urban densities in portions of Centers not conducive to commercial development, or in the Urban Center in districts designated for residential use. Policy LU -191. Allow residential uses throughout Centers as part of mixed-use developments. Consider bonus incentives for housing types compatible with commercial uses or lower density residential that is adjacent to Centers. Policy LU -192. Include uses that are compatible with each other within mixed-use developments; for example, office and certain retail uses with residential, office, and retail. Objective 00: Implement Renton's Urban Center consistent with the "Urban Centers criteria" of the Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) to create an area of concentrated employment and housing with direct service by high capacity transit and a wide range of land uses such as commercial/office/retail, recreation, public facilities, parks and open space. Policy LU -193. Renton's Urban Center should be maintained and redeveloped with supporting land use decisions and projects that accomplish the following objectives: 1) Enhance existing neighborhoods by creating investment opportunities in quality urban scale development; 2) Promote housing opportunities close to employment and commercial areas; 3) Support development of an extensive transportation system to reduce dependency on automobiles; 4) Strive for urban densities that use land more efficiently; 5) Maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services; 6) Reduce costs of and time required for permitting; and 7) Evaluate and mitigate environmental impacts. IX -35 Amended 12/0$/08 Policy LU -194. Establish two sub -areas within Renton's Urban Center. 1) Urban Center -Downtown (UC -D) is Renton's historic commercial district, surrounded by established residential neighborhoods. The UC -D is located from the Cedar River south to South 7th Street and between I-405 on the east and Shattuck Avenue South on the west. 2) Urban Center—North (UC -N) is the area that includes Southport, the Puget Sound Energy sub -station, and the South Lake Washington redevelopment area. The UC -N is located generally from Lake Washington on the north, the Cedar River and Renton Municipal Airport to the west, Sixth Street and Renton Stadium to the south, and Houser Way to the east. Policy LU -195. Maintain zoning that creates capacity for employment levels of 50 employees per gross acre and residential levels of 15 households per gross acre within the Urban Center. Policy LU -196. Support developments that utilize Urban Center levels of capacity. Where market conditions do not support Urban Center employment and residential levels, support site planning and/or phasing alternatives that demonstrate how, over time, infill or redevelopment can meet Urban Center objectives. URBAN CENTER DOWNTOWN LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement. The Urban Center - Downtown (UC -D) is expected to redevelop as a destination shopping area providing neighborhood, citywide, and sub -regional services and mixed-use residential development. UC -D residential development is expected to support urban scale multi -family projects at high densities, consistent with Urban Center policies. Site planning and infrastructure will promote a pedestrian scale environment and amenities. Objective LU -PP. Zone areas within the Urban Center -Downtown designation to provide a vibrant downtown district that provides a mix of high density urban land uses that support transit and the further synergism of public and private sector activities. Policy LU -197. Residential Multi -Family Traditional should be zoned in areas where low rise multi -family development already exists and further infill is appropriate, or where such development can provide a transition between higher intensity downtown uses and surrounding areas. Transit and shopping areas should be available within one half mile. Policy LU -198. Residential Multi -Family Urban should be zoned in areas outside of the established Pedestrian District, where it is appropriate for high intensity residential development to be established without mixed-use commercial or office space within the same building. Residential Multi -Family Urban areas should be served by transit. Policy LU -199. Commercial Office zoning should be selected for high intensity areas of the Urban Center Downtown where residential or mixed use residential -commercial development is not desired. IX -36 Amcnded 12/08108 Policy LU -200. Center Downtown zoning should be selected for those portions of the Urban Center -Downtown that are envisioned for the widest mix of residential and commercial uses. The Center Downtown should be directly served by multiple transit routes and should provide a high-quality pedestrian environment. Objective LU-QQ: Create a balance of land uses that contribute to the revitalization of downtown Renton and, with the designated Urban Center - North, fulfill the requirements of an Urban Center as defined by Countywide Planning Policies. Policy LU -201. Uses in the Urban Center - Downtown should include a dynamic mix of uses, including retail, entertainment, restaurant, office, and residential, that contribute to a vibrant city core. Policy LU -202. Development and redevelopment of Urban Center - Downtown should strive for urban density and intensity of uses. Policy LU -203. Ground floor uses with street frontage in the Pedestrian District should be limited to businesses which primarily cater to walk-in customer traffic (i.e. retail goods and services) in order to generate and maintain continuous pedestrian activity in these areas. Walk-in customer oriented businesses should also be encouraged to locate along street frontages in the remainder of the downtown core. Policy LU -204. Projects in the Urban Center - Downtown should achieve an urban density and intensity of development that is greater than typical suburban neighborhoods. Characteristics of urban intensity include no or little setbacks, taller structures, mixed - uses, structured parking, urban plazas and amenities within buildings. Policy LU -205. Development should not exceed mid -rise heights within the Urban Center - Downtown. Objective LU-QQ: Encourage the evolution of downtown Renton as a regional commercial district that complements the redevelopment expected to occur in the Urban Center - North. Policy LU -206. Discourage uses including expansion of existing uses in the Urban Center - Downtown that require large areas of surface parking and/or drive-through service queuing space. Objective LU -RR: Encourage additional residential development in the Urban Center - Downtown supporting the Countywide Planning Policies definition of Urban Center. Policy LU -207. Maximize the use of existing urban services and civic amenities and revitalize the City's downtown by promoting medium to high-density residential development in the downtown area. Allowed densities should conform to the criteria for Urban Centers in the Countywide Planning Policies. Policy LU -248. Mixed-use development where residential and commercial uses are allowed in the same building or on the same site should be encouraged in the urban 1X-37 Amended 12108/08 Center - Downtown. Incentives should be developed to encourage future development or redevelopment projects that incorporate residential uses. Policy LU -209. Net residential development densities in the Urban Center - Downtown designation should achieve a range of 14-100 dwelling units per acre and vary by zoning district. Policy LU -210. Density bonuses up to 150 du/ac may be granted within designated areas for provision of, or contribution to, a public amenity (e.g. passive recreation, public art) or provision of additional structured public parking. Policy LU -211. Condominium development and high-density owner -occupied townhouse development is encouraged in the Urban Center - Downtown. URBAN CENTER NORTH LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: The purpose of the UC -N is to redevelop industrial land for new office, residential, and commercial uses at a sufficient scale to implement the Urban Centers criteria adopted in the Countywide Planning Policies. This portion of the Urban Center is anticipated to attract large-scale redevelopment greater than that in the Urban Center -Downtown, due to large areas of land available for redevelopment. in addition, new development is expected to include a wider group of uses including remaining industrial activities, new research and development facilities, laboratories, retail integrated into pedestrian -oriented shopping districts, and a range of urban -scale, mixed- use residential, office and commercial uses. The combined uses will generate significant tax income for the City and provide jobs to balance the capacity for the more than 5,000 additional households in the Urban Center. Development is expected to complement the Urban Center -Downtown. UC -N policies will provide a blueprint for the transition of land over the next 30 years into this dynamic, urban mixed-use district. Objective LU -SS. Attract large-scale redevelopment of residential and commercial uses in order to implement the Urban Centers criteria of the Countywide Planning Policies to provide housing and jobs. Policy LU -212. Designate land for Urban -Center North land use if it meets the Urban Centers criteria in the Countywide Planning policies and if it contains large tracts of land suitable for redevelopment within the next 20 years. Policy LU -213. Support a range and variety of commercial and office uses. Policy LU -214. Allow hospitality uses such as hotels, convention and conference centers. Policy LU -215. Co -locate uses within a site and/or building in order to promote urban style, mixed-use development. Policy LU -216. Support uses that serve the region, a sub -regional, or citywide market as well as the surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU -217. Support integration of community -scale office and service uses including restaurants, theaters, day care, art museums, and studios. IX -38 Amended 12/08/08 Policy LU -218. Support extension of Park Ave. to Lake Washington. Policy LU -219. Address the mix and compatibility of uses, residential density, conceptual building, site and landscape design, identification of gateway features, signs, circulation, transit opportunities, and phasing through master plan and site plan review process. Policy LU -220. Allow phasing plans for mixed-use projects. t' i Urban Center Map r.[x+ "icrkv-Igl­l,!ieigh[wwli.wd. on[l 5eral��ic Piamiir� Akc YKexd h3nin:.halor '�lulyvt' w y t' i Urban Center Map r.[x+ "icrkv-Igl­l,!ieigh[wwli.wd. on[l 5eral��ic Piamiir� Akc YKexd h3nin:.halor '�lulyvt' Amended I M8108 Vision - District One The changes in District One will be dramatic, as surface parking lots and existing large- scale industrial buildings are replaced by retail, flex tech, and office uses. Initial development may be characterized by large -format, low-rise buildings surrounding internal surface parking lots and bordered by a strong pedestrian -oriented spine along Park Avenue. As the Urban Center -North evolves, the buildings of District One may be remodeled and/or replaced with taller, higher density structures. Parking structures may also be built in future phases as infill projects that further the urbanization of the District. Two initial patterns of development are anticipated within the District: one, creating a destination retail shopping district; and the other, resulting in a more diverse mixed-use, urban scale office and technical center with supporting commercial retail uses. It is hoped that over time these patterns will blend to become a cohesive mixed-use district. In its first phases of development, District One hosts for the region a new form of retail center. Absent are the physical constraints of a covered mall. Although parking initially may be handled in surface lots, their configuration, juxtaposed with smaller building units, eliminates the expanse of paving that makes other retail shopping areas unappealing to pedestrians. Building facades, of one or two stories, are positioned adjacent to sidewalks and landscaped promenades. Destination retail uses that draw from a sub -regional or regional market blend with small, specialty stores in an integrated shopping environment to support other businesses in the area. While large -format ("big - box") retail stores anchor development, they do not stand-alone. Rather, they are architecturally and functionally connected to the smaller shops and stores in integrated shopping centers. Cafes with outdoor seating, tree -lined boulevards and small gathering places invite shoppers to linger after making their initial purchases. Retail development takes an urban form with high-quality design considering a human scale and pedestrian orientation. While retail development will add to the City's tax base and create a modest increase in employment, the vision for the Urban Center -North is that of a dense employment center. Within the initial phases of redevelopment, job growth will also occur in high-quality, well-designed flex/tech development and low- to mid -rise office, lab and research and development buildings that provide attractive environments for companies offering high - wage careers in information technology, life sciences and light ("clean") manufacturing and assembly industries. Redevelopment in this area will also include residential opportunities in low- to mid -rise buildings with upper -story office and/or ground -related retail. Additional supporting retail will also be constructed. Logan Avenue is extended and redeveloped for public use as a major, tree -lined parkway. During the second generation of redevelopment in District One, changing property values and further investment will allow for higher density development in the form of offices and residences mixed with other uses. As this area is transformed into a mature mixed- use district, community gathering spaces and recreation facilities to support the City's neighborhoods and business districts become viable. Cultural facilities, as well as Ix -40 Amended 12/08/08 convention and conference centers may be located within the District and could be incorporated into mixed-use development with retail, office and hotels. Small parks, open space, and community gathering places will be incorporated into site design. Facilities such as multiple -screen theaters and other cultural facilities may add to the amenity value of the District, District One Policies Objective LU -TT: Create a major commercial/retail district developed with uses that add significantly to Renton's retail tax base, provide additional employment opportunities within the City, attract businesses that serve a broad market area and act as a gathering place within the community. Policy LU -221: Designate land for Urban Center- North i zoning if the property is east of Logan Avenue. Policy LU -223. Support office and technology-based uses with retail uses and services along portions of the ground floors to facilitate the creation of an urban and pedestrian environment. Policy LU -224. Support uses supporting high-technology industries such as biotechnology, life sciences, and information technology by providing retail amenities and services in the area. Policy LU -225. Allow for the development of destination retail centers that are consistent with a district -wide conceptual plan. Policy LU -226. Encourage the placement of buildings for retail tenants along pedestrian - oriented streets to create urban configurations. Policy LU -227. Ensure that big -box retail functions as an anchor to larger, cohesive, urban -scale retail developments. Objective LU -U U: Create an urban district initially characterized by high-quality, compact, low-rise development that can accommodate a range of independent retail, office, research, or professional companies. Support the continuing investment in and transition of low-rise development into more intensive, urban forms of development to support a vital mixed-use district over time. Policy LU -228. Allow phasing plans for developments as part of the master plan and site plan review that: a) Provide a strategy for future infill or redevelopment with mixed-use buildings. b) Preserve opportunities for future structured parking and more intense employment -generating development. Policy LU -229. Support the co -location of uses within a site and/or building in order to promote urban style mixed-use (commercial/retail/office/residential) development. Policy LU -230. Discourage ancillary retail pads. IX -41 Amended I2/08/08 Vision - District Two Ongoing Boeing airplane manufacturing is supported by the City and expected to continue across District Two for the foreseeable future. This important industrial base will continue to provide high -wage jobs within the Urban Center—North as redevelopment occurs in District One. Should Boeing surplus property west of Logan Avenue, redevelopment that follows will take on more urban characteristics, incorporating mixed-use (residential, office, and retail) development types. Planning for the redevelopment of District Two will take into consideration the unique issues involved in the transition of a site historically used for heavy industry adjacent to the Renton Municipal Airport. Redevelopment will be consistent with the Renton Municipal Airport Compatible Land Use Program. Eventually, redevelopment will lead to the creation of a vibrant new lakefront community providing additional housing, shopping, and employment opportunities to the region. The South Lake Washington neighborhood will be a center of activity in the Puget Sound region—a premiere address for residents, a hub of economic activity providing capacity for high -wage jobs, and a world-class destination for shopping, dining, recreation, and entertainment Mixed-use projects will be high in design and construction quality, and offer landmark living, shopping, and working environments planned to take advantage of a regionally centralized location, efficient access, mass transit, potential passenger ferry connections, stellar views of lake and mountains, and restored natural environments along the Cedar River and Lake Washington shorelines. Development within District Two will be organized into neighborhoods with housing, shopping, employment, and recreation opportunities located within walking distance. Low- to mid -rise buildings will be located to the south while development to the north will be primarily mid -to- high-rise in order to maximize views. While some on -street or surface parking may occur, the majority of parking will be provided in the lower levels of mixed-use buildings or in stand-alone structures designed to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. This environment attracts a residential population living in up -scale neighborhoods featuring higher -density condominium and apartment forms of housing north of N. 8th St. Townhouse developments south of N. 8t' St. provide a transition to the adjacent North Renton neighborhood in terms of scale and use of buildings. Residents of both neighborhoods will find ample shopping and employment opportunities in the immediate vicinity. Residents, employees and visitors will enjoy new public open space. These range from public access to the lakefront through small parks, overviews, and trails, to large public plazas and central greens that provide gathering places, recreational opportunities, and a celebration of views of the Seattle skyline, the Olympic Mountains, and Mount Rainier. IX -42 Amended 12/08108 District Two Policies Objective LU -VV: Support ongoing airplane manufacturing and accessory uses. Policy LU -231. Designate land for Urban Center- North s zoning if the property is either west of Logan Avenue. Policy LU -232. Support existing airplane manufacturing and accessory uses while allowing for the gradual transition to other uses should The Boeing Company surplus property within District Two. Policy LU -233. Allow airplane manufacturing and related accessory uses such as airplane sales and repair, laboratories for research, development and testing, medical institutions, and light industrial uses including small scale or less intensive production and manufacturing, and fabricating with accessory office and support services. Objective LU -WW: if Boeing elects to surplus property in District Two, land uses should transition into an urban area characterized by high-quality development offering landmark living, shopping and work environments planned to take advantage of access and views to the adjacent river and lake shorelines. Policy LU -234. Should The Boeing Company elect to surplus properties in District Two support the redevelopment with a range and variety of commercial, office, research, and residential uses. 1) Support a mid- to high-rise scale and intensity of development. 2) Support retail and service activities as ancillary uses that are synergistic with commercial, office, biotech, research, technology, and residential activities. Traditional retail (Main Street), general business and professional services, and general offices are examples of the types of uses that are supported in combination with other activities. 3) Support urban scale residential development in District Two. North of N. 8' Street structured parking should be required. 4) Allow a limited range of service uses, such as churches, government offices and facilities, commercial parking garages, and day care centers through the conditional use process. 5) Allow eating and drinking establishments and cultural facilities as part of office or mixed-use development. 6) Prohibit new warehousing, storage including self -storage, vehicle sales, repair and display (including boats, cars, trucks and motorcycles), assembly and packaging operations, heavy and medium manufacturing and fabrication unrelated to production of new commercial airplanes. 7) Support development of public amenities such as public open space, schools, recreational and cultural facilities, and museums. 8) Allow commercial uses such as retail and services provided that they support the primary uses of the site and are architecturally and functionally integrated into the development. IX -43 Amended 12/08/08 CENTER VILLAGE LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: 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 sub -regional 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. Objective LU -XX: Develop Center Villages, characterized by intense urban development supported by site planning and infrastructure that provide a pedestrian scale environment. Policy LU -235. Apply the Center Village designation to areas with an existing suburban and auto -oriented land use pattern, which, due to availability and proximity to existing residential neighborhoods, are candidate locations for a higher density mixed-use type of development. Policy LU -236. Implement the Center Village Designation using multiple zoning designations including Residential 14 (R-14), Center Village (CV), and the Residential Multi -family zones (RMF, RM -U, RM -T). Policy LU -237. Zone property as Center Village in areas served by transit that are characterized by existing commercial and multi -family development that are envisioned to become mixed use, pedestrian oriented, community centers and serve as a community focal point. Policy LU -238. Zone property R-14 within the Center Village land use designation in areas where a compact mix of housing types (including small lot single family, semi - attached, and attached housing) is desired. Ideally, R-14 areas provide a transition between higher intensity zones within the Center Village designation and the surrounding land uses. Policy LU -239. Zone property for Residential Multi -Family (RMF), Residential Multi - Family Urban (RMU), or Residential Multi -Family Traditional (RMT) development where existing multi -family development exists at the intensity suggested by the zone, or where additional multi -family development is desired and can be buffered from lower intensity land uses by the R-14 zone. Policy LU -240. Allow residential density ranging from a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 80 dwelling units per acre in the Center Village designation. Policy LU -241. Encourage mixed-use structures and projects. Policy LU -242. Encourage shared parking to use urban land efficiency. Policy LU -243. Encourage uses in Center Villages that serve a sub -regional or citywide market as well as the surrounding neighborhoods. IX -44 Amended 12/08/08 Policy LU -244. Encourage more urban style design and intensity of development (e.g. building height, bulk, landscaping, parking) within Center Villages than with land uses outside the Centers. Policy LU -245. Promote the clustering of community commercial uses and discourage the development of strip commercial areas. Policy LU -246. Residential development within Center Villages is intended to be urban scale, stacked, flat and/or townhouse development with structured parking. Policy LU -247. Prohibit new garden style multi -family development. Policy LU -248. Provide community scale office and service uses. IX -45 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 3 CITY OF RENTON CRITICAL AREA MAPS (RMC 4-3- 05OQ5) Section 4-3-050 Additional Resources Exhibit 3 Figure 4-3-OSOQS WETLANDS Page 1 of 1 Rcatm Municipal Coda Greeks Fcr Referenc, Roads livers Cky $omlary L Inch —1 A Wetiandl Lakes — .... Mu kIVaHV B mTldades http://www.codepublishing.corn/WA/Renton/htmi/RentonO4/RentonO4O3/RentonO4O3O5... 12/16/2010 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 4 CITY OF RENTON EROSION HAZARDS MAP Additional Resources Exhibit 4 City of Renton Sensitive Areas Erosion Hazards Public Woft Department G. Zrnmennan, Administrator e I ;00 a,wo Technical Services r ' ' HAZARD CONDITION Critical Infrastructure Oonnaann Vsneski, ES3 av-a Face nepa ment Printed on May 21, 2009 Fire Stations 6ata Source: P116EIc Works, UGlbes Systems, Technical Services C � V Valley Medical Center k;` Sch0al5 1in A '7L ✓j t� 'r r j { 1 i LI } Public Woft Department G. Zrnmennan, Administrator e I ;00 a,wo Technical Services r ' ' HAZARD CONDITION Critical Infrastructure Oonnaann Vsneski, ES3 av-a Face nepa ment Printed on May 21, 2009 Fire Stations 6ata Source: P116EIc Works, UGlbes Systems, Technical Services C � V Valley Medical Center k;` Sch0al5 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 5 CITY OF RENTON NOISE ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 8-7 RMC) Chapter 8-7 NOISE LEVEL REGULATIONS Additional Resources Exhibit 5 CHAPTER 7 NOISE LEVEL REGULATIONS SECTION: 8-7-1: .......... . Motor Vehicle Noise Performance Standards 8-7-2: Maximum Environmental Noise Levels 8-7-3: Public Disturbance, Noises 8-7.=4: Designation Of Zoned Areas 8-7-5: Penalties For Violation 8-7-6: Content Not Governing Sound 8-7-7: Severability 8-7-8: Variances And Appeal Page 1 of 4 8-7-1 MOTOR VEHICLE NOISE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: The City Council of the City hereby adopts Washington Administrative Code Sections 173-62-020, 173-62-030, and 173-62-040. 8-7-2 MAXIMUM ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE LEVELS: The City Council of the City hereby adopts by reference Washington Administrative Code Sections 173-60-020, 173-60-040, 173-60-050, and 173-60-090. 8-7-3 PUBLIC DISTURBANCE, NOISES: It is unlawful for any person knowingly to cause or make, or for any person in possession of property knowingly to allow to originate from the property, unreasonable noise that disturbs another. Noises constituting a public nuisance shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following sounds or combinations of sounds: (Ord. 5196, 2-13-06) A. Frequent, repetitive or continuous noises made by any animal which unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort or repose of property owners or possessors, except that such sounds made in animal shelters, commercial kennels, veterinary hospitals, pet shops, or pet kennels licensed as such, shall be exempt from this subsection_ B. The frequent, repetitive or continuous sounding of any horn or siren attached to a motor vehicle, except as a warning of danger, or as specifically permitted or required by law. C. The creation of frequent, repetitive or continuous sounds in connection with the starting, operation, repair, rebuilding or testing of any motor vehicle, motorcycle, off- highway vehicle, or internal combustion engine, within a rural or residential district, so as to unreasonably disturb or interfere with the peace, comfort and repose of owners or possessors of real property. Exception: Sounds created by portable generators during periods when there is no electrical service available from the primary supplier due to natural disaster or power outage shall not be a violation of this Section. (Ord. 5091, 8-9- 04) D. The use of a sound amplifier or other device capable of producing, or reproducing amplified sound upon public streets for the purpose of commercial advertising, or sales, or for charging the attention of the public to any vehicle, structure or property of the contents therein, except as permitted by law, and except that vendors whose sole method of selling is from a moving vehicle shall be exempt from this subsection. E. The making of any loud and raucous sound within one thousand feet (1,000') of any school, hospital, sanitarium, nursing or convalescent center. F. The creation by use of a musical instrument, whistle, sound amplifier, record player, stereo, or other device capable of producing or reproducing sound of loud or raucous sounds which emanate frequently, repetitively, or continuously from any http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Renton/html/Renton08/RentonO8O7.html 12/16/2010 Chapter 8-7 NOISE LEVEL REGULATIONS Page 2 of 4 building, structure or property located within a rural or residential district, such as sounds originating from a band session, social gathering, stereo. G. The amplified or unamplified human voice which unreasonably interferes with the peace, comfort and repose of property owners or possessors. (Ord. 3478, 11-3-80) H. Any sound from a motor vehicle audio system or portable audio equipment such as a radio, tape player or compact disc player which is operated at such a volume that it interferes with conversation or which causes vibrations to be felt from a distance of seventy five feet (75) or more from the source of the sound. (Ord. 4301, 12-17-90) 8-7-4 DESIGNATION OF ZONED AREAS:1 The EDNA (environmental designation for noise abatement) is hereby established as follows: A. Residential zones, which shall include RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, RM, RMH, are classified as Class A EDNA. B. Commercial zones, which shall include CN, CD, CV, CA, CO, COR, UC -N1, UC - N2, are classified as Class B EDNA. C. Industrial zones, which shall include IL, IM, IH, are classified as Class C EDNA. (Ord. 3478, 11-3-80; Ord. 5450, 3-2-09) 8-7-5 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION: Except as otherwise provided, any violation of this Chapter shall be a civil violation subject to RMC 1-3-2. The penalties set forth herein shall not be deemed exclusive; the City may obtain an injunction against such violation from the Superior Court of King County. Any ordinance of the City inconsistent with any portions of this Chapter is repealed except that any ordinance defining noise as a nuisance shall remain in full force and effect. (Ord. 5551, 9-13-10) 8-7-6 CONTENT NOT GOVERNING SOUND: The content of the sound will not be considered in determining a violation of this Chapter. 8-7-7 SEVERABILITY: These regulations are declared to be severable. If any section, subsection, paragraph, clause or other portion is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions. If any section, subsection, paragraph, clause or any portion is adjudged invalid or unconstitutional, or is applied to a particular person or use, the application of such portion to other persons or use shall not be affected. (Ord. 4301, 12-17-90) 8-7-8 VARIANCES AND APPEAL: A. Jurisdiction: The Community and Economic Development Administrator or his/her designee shall hear and decide requests for variances from the requirements of this Chapter. B. Application: Parties seeking a variance from this Chapter, or a duly authorized representative of the parties seeking the variance, shall file an application for the variance, which application shall set forth fully the grounds therefor and the facts the applicant deems material to justify the granting of such a variance. The applicant for a noise variance must be the owner or jurisdiction in charge of the project. In no cases shall the applicant for the noise variance be the contractor for the construction project. C. Public Notice And Hearing: A public hearing shall be required for all noise variances which are greater than two (2) days in duration. For those variance requests of two (2) days or less in duration, the variance decision shall be made by the Administrator or his/her designee following the public notice process. If required, the hearing for a noise variance shall be a public hearing, the date of which shall be not more than forty http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Rentonihtml/RentonO8/RentonO8O7.html 12/16/2010 Chapter 8-7 NOISE LEVEL REGULATIONS Page 3 of 4 five (45) days from the date of filing and acceptance of the application for the variance. Notice of the time and place of public hearing shall be given in at least one publication in the City's legal newspaper, which publication shall be not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of said public hearing_ In addition, three (3) written notices of such public hearing shall be posted at least ten (10) days prior to such hearing within, on or about the location which will generate such noise. Additionally, written notice of the hearing shall be given to any resident or property owner that will experience an increase in noise, or potentially have an increase in noise, such that this variance will increase the quantity of noise received by that property owner or resident. The burden of providing this written notice shall be upon the applicant. The Community and Economic Development Administrator or his/her designee shall not consider any variance for which written notices have not been given, or grant any variance that would cause an increase in noise levels beyond that permitted in this Chapter unless the affected property owner or resident has been notified. D. Factors For Granting Variance: The Community and Economic Development Administrator or his/her designee, in passing upon an application for a variance, shall consider all technical evaluations, all relevant factors and standards specified in other sections of this Chapter, and in addition thereto shall consider the following, none of which is mandatory for the granting of the variance: 1. That the applicant will suffer an undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to the applicant's property or project, and that the strict application of this Chapter will deprive the subject property owner or applicant of rights and privileges enjoyed by others. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, welfare or safety, or unduly injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the location for which this variance is sought. 3. That the variance sought is the minimum variance which will accomplish the desired purpose. 4. That the variance contains such conditions deemed to be necessary to limit the impact of the variance on the residence or property owners impacted by the variance. The variance approval may be subject to conditions including, but not limited to, the following: a. Implementation of a noise monitoring program; b. Maximum noise levels; c. Limitation on types of equipment and use of particular equipment; d. Limitation on back-up beepers for equipment; e. Required use of noise shields or barriers; f. Restrictions to specific times and days; g. Specific requirements for documentation of compliance with the noise variance conditions; h. Specific requirements for notification to nearby residents; i. Required cash security to pay for inspection services to verify compliance; j. Required access to the project by the City to verify compliance with the noise variance conditions; k. Specific program to allow for temporary hotel vouchers to effected residents; I. Requirements for written verification that all workers understand the noise variance conditions for the project; and m. Provision allowing the City to immediately revoke the variance approval if the variance conditions are violated. 5. The importance of the services provided by the facility creating the noise and the other impacts caused to the public safety, health and welfare balanced against the harm to be suffered by residents or property owners receiving the increased noise permitted under this variance. http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Renton/html/Renton08/RentonO807.htm] 12/16/2010 Chapter 8-7 NOISE LEVEL REGULATIONS Page 4 of 4 6. The availability of practicable alternative locations or methods for the proposed use which will generate the noise. 7. The extent by which the prescribed noise limitations will be exceeded by the variance and the extent and duration of the variance. E. Findings And Conclusions Of Community And Economic Development Administrator, The Community and Economic Development Administrator or his/her designee shall reduce his or her decision to written findings, conclusions and a decision. The written findings, conclusions and decision shall include a section noting the right of appeal from the decision to the City Council. F. Appeals: Any party participating in the public hearing feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Community and Economic Development Administrator or his/her designee may appeal the decision of the Administrator to the Hearing Examiner within fourteen (14) days of the decision. The appeal document shall note the errors in findings or conclusions which the appellant believes are material to the appeal. The Hearing Examiner shall consider the appeal and shall affirm the decision of the Administrator unless the Hearing Examiner finds that there are material errors in the findings or conclusions, or that the decision is not supportable by the findings and conclusions. If the Hearing Examiner finds such errors it shall reduce its decision to writing specifying the findings and conclusions that are in error or stating that the decision is not supportable by the findings and conclusions. Any party remaining aggrieved by the decision of the Hearing Examiner may further appeal to the King County Superior Court within twenty- one (21) calendar days from the date of the Hearing Examiner's decision. (Ord. 4330, 10- 28-91; Ord. 5156, 9-26-05; Ord. 5551, 9-13-10) 1 See Title IV for Zoning Regulations. This page of the Renton Municipal Code is current through City Website: http://rentonwa.gov/ Ordinance 5556, passed October 11, 2010. City Telephone: (425) 430-6502 Disclaimer: The City Clerk's office has the official version of the Code Publishing Company Renton Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. http://www.codepublishiDg.com/WA/RentonihtmURentonO8/RentonO8O7.html 12/16/2010 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 6 CITY OF RENTON HUMAN SERVICES WEBSITE Human Services Maps Additional Resources Exhibit= 6 i rr v rD, r i Y,)i: are he -e. : Living Human Services Northeast Renton Bordered by I-405 to the west, the City of Newcastle to the north and Maple Valley Highway to the south, Northeast Renton is a primarily residential area and a major population center of the City. It contains a variety of parks, two neighborhood centers, a library, and the Maplewood Golf Course. Human services resources in this neighborhood include the Renton Housing Authority, Emergency Feeding Program at St. Matthew's Lutheran Church, Even Start and the Friendly Kitchen (both located at Hillcrest Early Childhood Center), and the Seattle/King County Public Health Clinic. a Hover on the map points below to find the name, address, telephone number, and photo of area human services agencies or resources. Click on the link to access the agency's website. e Right -click on the map to zoom in. ■ Human Services Emergency Feeding Program. S1- Matthews Ludmrn Church Renton Housing Authority Friendly Kit6hen, Hgkrast Eery Childhood Cantor SeatHelKing County Public Health Clinic Page l of 1 http://rentonwa.gov/living/default.aspx?id=l 8002&printfriend1y=1 9/8/2010 Human Services Maps Additional Resources Exhibit 6 t JtV of , r ri You are here : Living Human Services Resources: Waterfront/ North Renton Stretching along Lake Washington and I-405 and bordered on the south by the Cedar River, the Waterfront/ North Renton section of the City provides a beautiful location to live, work and play. It contains the Cedar River Boathouse, the downtown library, the Senior Center, and several parks including the 53 -acre Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park which has a swimming area, boat launch, tennis and basketball courts, and trails. Human services resources in this neighborhood include the Ukrainian Community Center and the Renton Senior Center. • Hover on the map points below for the name, address, telephone number, and photo of area human services agencies and resources. Click on the link to access the agency's website. • Right -click on the map to zoom in. http://rentonwa.gov/living/default.aspx?id=18008&printfriendly=l Page 1 of 2 918/2010 Human Services Maps Page 2 of 2 Additional Resources Exhibit 6 N Human Services Ukranlan Community Cantar Renton Senior Centar http://rentonwa.gov/living/default.aspx?id=18008&printfriendly=l 9/8/2010 Human Services Maps Additional Resources Exhibit 6 (:ilti'r14 + You are here : Living Human Services Downtown Renton Downtown Renton is a thriving, urban environment where people can live, work or play. In addition to its many restaurants, shops, and transit center, the downtown area also contains the Renton History Museum, the downtown library, and several parks, including the Piazza, which hosts the Farmers' Market every Tuesday from lune 3 through September 16, 3:00 to 7:00 p.m. Human services resources in this neighborhood include The Salvation Army/Renton Rotary Food Bank, Health Point Community Health Center, YWCA, Renton Area Youth and Family Services (RAYS), Renton Clothes Bank, and King County Sexual Assault Resource Center. • Hover on the map points below to find the name, address, telephone number, and photo of area human services agencies or resources. Click on the link to access the agency's website. • Right -click on the map to zoom in. N Human Services The Salvation Army Renton Rotary Food Bank Rotacare at The Salvation Army Rotary Food Bannt< The Salvation Army Corporal• Office HealthPotnt (Community Health Center) Renton Clothes Bank Renton Area Youth and Family Servleee Renton City Hall King County Sexual Assault Resource Center United Noy BURST tw Prosperity YWCA Page 1 of 1 http://rentonwa.gov/living/default.aspx?id=18000&printfriendly=l 9/8/2010 Human Services Maps Page 1 of 2 Additional Resources Exhibit 6 t:i1yo j r{ r i You are I ere : LhjSinCsS Human Services: Southeast Renton Located to the east of I-405 and SR 167, Southeast Renton has grown considerable as a result of the Benson Hill Annexation. The area contains the Henry Mose Aquatic Center, the Renton Community Center, a portion of the Cedar River Trail, Carco Theatre, and a number of parks, including Philip Arnold Park, whose ten acres perched on Renton Hill have picnic shelters, basketball and tennis courts, and a lighted ballfield. Human services resources in this neighborhood include the Dental Clinic of Seattle/King County Public Health and the Valley Medical Center. • Hover on the map points below to find the name, address, telephone number, and photo of area human services agencies or resources. • Click on the link to access the agency's website. http://rentonwa.govAbusiness/default.aspx?id=18004&printfriendly=1 9/8/2010 Human Services Maps Page 2 of 2 Additional Resources Exhibit 6 ■ Numan Services Valley Medical Canter Oental Clinic, Seattle/King County Public Health http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=18004&printfriendly=l 9/8/2010 Human Services Maps Page 1 of 2 Additional Resources Exhibit 6 You are fere : easiness Human Services Southwest Renton Running south from the West Hills area and bordered by SR -167, Southwest Renton is characterized primarily by high-quality, low-rise officer Flex -tech and industrial properties. Human services resources in this neighborhood include the DSHS/Renton Community Service Office, Emergency Feeding Program, King County Veteran's Office, and WorkSource Renton, all located in the same office building at 500 SW 7th St. Hover on the map points below to find the name, address, telephone number, and photo of area human services agencies or resources. Click on the link to access the agency's website. Right -click on the map to zoom in. http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=18006&printfriendly—1 9/8/2010 Human Services Maps Page 2 of 2 Additional Resources Exhibit 6 Human Services OSKSIf Won Community Services Office Emergency Feeding Program King County VeWan's Office Worksource Renton http:Urentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=18406&printfriendIy=1 9/8/2010 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 7 CITY OF RENTON ZONING MAP Additional Resources Exhibit 7 RE$IOENTAL �fIRLIR•.oc.aLc"��on - ______ _ _ _���:�;���:o. INOU6TIIIAL I�abSlntlu.lrlallJph! (R -,I Ratltl•MW,tlufi I�ryLN,l urbanCmlrr NeNh1 �IIM71MusVl•I M•61t,m City of Renton iR�l Re�tlerRLi .tlu'•c - - NCM7 uro•n Cern NOM 7 � IIMI InAwlryl N•.vy Ift21 Rasbnreul euul.c (RMNI RRaM.mi.l M.nuM1CNretl YWmn 1�(LnI Carmr DoxMawn [-Rrn4on LkY UMM1 [R -,OI R•aHenWl lrtOWae COMMERLIALIMIFf9 UbE (IIRRR-NM,a--TFl IlRRRe+a•aalalid. naMnntiNl.itiall+,MaaaUnrluutilaJyc arnaYdy:Yiaul RidA LLI eLormmRm,menrcJlca•l Ao0rtlyaioriccal IZVnMng T }�-((LLGOAORIJ l -� IRM -L/ Rdi. xurtis•mily ure•n e..mer mok)Corm U1 N.J,hborh I uptl t,I Jhronpn 0,h— 5490 f . ERrcbve on CkA t, 30.2009 ...rno-l..r::nrvssv�� .,. •. e....l �.., .w •rrxmrwr.• i ��.�a �ar�w am.o•rrme INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY -GIS Pnntetl o February 3, 2010 rr- ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 8 F.I.R.M. PLANEL NUMBER 53033CO668F, 05-16-95 co v �KiN do m5 o EE 4 r NI �� m� Lu c" yQyp eaoi6 co W a AC�.1 K103 CL J Z H _ ;E41 a an Q.- o o � In 8 via" �_ 8`�LL 23 1 x cm_C2 �zy �t LAN ti $+$ado p a_ O b� mLL$ Lo d 4 O : A fa AO p « a Dw 0. D w x w 3:zw&Uwz a zd �a z Lu " cc o. O Ln z N xw koz z " w a 3N 3nN3AV 309NpW A- �e Lu z47 Z ? Fi-- w Oz LU d z Q�G zF w� w C~ �w z� z� cc w Lu cc z zEn zen a z cn 4 u Oujz cn Lu w ��GQSE55 AFFER50N AVENUE NE r� z Nz nw oz � F z Z(7w [7F z� Z� Qz cc x a U �ssoEx avEssuE �'� a +u w z oz z s ow w ow �z z �-z Z U W w Z J 1i a ac c_ rLL u x n w ccEnF p. w w z w z ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 9 NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY DIGITIAL WETLANDS MAPPER TOOL C) v o n n � a CD Q ❑ iLl iL C C d Y• }j � C C � C C" m = al L. m (G �TT. RS sv W uJ LOU0 iL J tr ClS 0 in Z Z C� G y � O u_ e a 9 � y qX � CL i� a> u #� m w m U O _ c �M U •c � e � o g N c a� ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 10 FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE WEEPAGE - DESIGNATED COASTAL BARRIER IMPROVEMENT AREAS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Home Additional Resources Exhibit 10 —mar- Note: Page 2 indicates none in Washington State John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Habitat and Resource Conservation Habitat and Resource rrr ?WHAT'S NEWNH r r Conservation Home . • + • • + • • Kids and Educators bout Us I Congress Considers lean Water Act Section 04 f aastal Barrier esources Act Coastal Program Communication Towers Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act H dro ower Licensing Marine Mammals lNational Environmental PoiicxAct National Wetlands National Elrandsr Fish and ram Sikes Act Status and Trends [Transportation Planning ater Resource Develo meet Acts [wind Energy 1-800-344JAI! L D Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite Modification of Four CBRS Units in Rhode Island The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a draft revised map for four CBRS units, Sachuest Point Unit RI - 04P, Easton Beach Unit RI -05P, Almy Pond Unit RI -06, and Hazards Beach Unit RI -07, located in Newport County, Rhode Island. The revised map is the subject of legislation, H.R. 5331, under consideration by Congress. Draft M_a.p_Existins and Proposed Boundaries llraft.Ma.p..(Yroposed _Boundaries) Summary Proposed Changes H.R.5331 U.S. ,Fish and Wildlife Service Testimony The Coa..stal. Barrier ResourcesAct (CBRA) of 1982 established the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS), comprised of undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Great Lakes coasts. The law encourages the conservation of hurricane prone, biologically rich coastal barriers by restricting Federal expenditures that encourage development, such as Federal flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program. CBRA is a free-market approach to conservation. These areas can be developed, but Federal taxpayers do not underwrite the investments. CBRA saves taxpayer dollars and encourages conservation at the same time. 'BRA has saved over $1 billion and will save millions more in the future. Approximately 3.1 million acres of land and associated aquatic habitat are part of the CBRS. The Fish and Wildlife Service maintains the repository for CBRA maps enacted by Congress that depict the CBRS. The Service also advises Federal agencies, landowners, and Congress regarding whether properties are in or out of the CBRS, and what kind of Federal expenditures are allowed in the CBRS. Coastal Barriers • What are Coastal Barriers? • Types of Coastal Barriers • Location of Coastal Barrier Page 1 of 3 HOT TOPIC'S Legislation Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000 Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 20.05 Recent Testimony 109th Congress 108th Congress 107th Congress 106th Congress Reports Report to Congress: John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources $stem Digital Mapping -Pilot Project U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report to Congress, 2008 Coastal Barrier Resources S"fem Status _of Develop. meat That Has Occurred and Financial Assistance Provided by Federal http-//www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/coastal—barrier.html 11 / 14/2010 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Horne 840 Arlington, Virginia 22203 7031358-2161 & 7031358- 2183 • Secondary Barriers —.. __ ............._T-....._._.... . • Value of Coastal Barriers • Developme.nt.of Coastal Barriers U.S. Fish and Wildlife I John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Service Contact Us Resources ,System Form U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Home John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources SN -stem Fact sheet John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Map Units What Is Included in the John H. Chafee Coastal Barri _r Resources System? Categories of John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System.. -Units What is an_"Undev_eloped Coastal Barrier"? Federal 5_pending Prohibitions. Modiflcation of Boundaries U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Role Accamplis.h.ments. Map_Modernizabon Maps of Coastal Barrier Resources System State Locator Maps AlabamaConnecticut Delaware Florida C. rein ILouisiana Maine Aiarvland Massachusetts muchiaan I I !Minnesota ]lississippi New Jersey New York Great Lakes N,e4V_Fork Longeland North Carolina Qbio Puerto Ricn Rhode Island Sauth Carolina "Texas !'irgin Islands VL inia W isconsin Uo►tinload (Official CBRS flaps Uon°nlnad Digital CBRS Boundaries Digital Mapping -Pilot Project The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service held a 120 -day public comment period from April 7 —August 5, 2009, on its Report to Congress: John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Digital Mapping Pilot Project. The report, which was directed by the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-514), contains draft maps for 70 CBRS units and describes the results of the pilot project and a framework for modernizing the remainder of the CBRS maps. The 70 Page 2 of 3 Agencies General Accounting Office Report to Congress, March 2007 The Coastal Barrier Resources A_ ct: Harnessing the Power of Market Forces to Conserve America's Coasts and ......... .....I... 5_ ave Taxpayers' Money U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report to Congress, August 2002 Coastal Barriers: Develqpmeni Occurring DQSpite Prohibitions Against Federal Assistance General Accounting Office Report to Congress, July 1992 http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html 11/14/2010 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Home pilot project units, which represent approximately 10 percent of the entire CBRS, are located in Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana. The Service plans to review all comments received during the comment period and make adjustments to the pilot project maps, as appropriate, based on CBRA's criteria and objective mapping protocols. The Service will create a set of final recommended maps to address the comments made during the public comment period and to update the underlying base maps with newer aerial imagery. The final recommended maps will be included in a report to Congress, per the directives of the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L.109-226). The pilot project maps will not become effective until they are enacted by Congress through new legislation. Report to Congress Draft Maps and_Digital.B_oundaries List of Pilot Project Units News Release - April 7, 2009 News Release _ - June 29, 2009 Fact Sheet Notice of Availability ._of._Report. and..Draft Maps Notice of Extension and Public_ Meetings Virtual Pubiic..Meeting Presentation (pdt) For more information about the Coastal Barrier Resources System send e-mail or contact: Katie Niemi U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation, Room 860 4401 N. Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22203 Phone: (703) 358-2161 Page 3 of 3 Last updated: August 17, 2010 Fisheries and Habitat Conservation U.S_ Fish and Wildlife Service Home Page I Department of the Interior j USA.gov About the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service I Accessibility I Privacy I Notices I Disclaimer FOIA I DOI Inspector General Search http:l/www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.htmi 11/14/2010 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 11 KING COUNTY SEPA GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS WOKRSHEET, VERSION 1.7 Additional Resources Exhibit 11 King County Department of Development and Environmental Services SEPA GHG Emissions Worksheet Version 1.7 12/26/07 Introduction The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires environmental review of development proposals that may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. If a proposed development is subject to SEPA, the project proponent is required to complete the SEPA Checklist. The Checklist includes questions relating to the development's air emissions_ The emissions that have traditionally been considered cover smoke, dust, and industrial and automobile emissions. With our understanding of the climate change impacts of GHG emissions, King County requires the applicant to also estimate these emissions. Emissions created by Development GHG emissions associated with development come from multiple sources: • The extraction, processing, transportation, construction and disposal of materials and landscape disturbance (Embodied Emissions) • Energy demands created by the development after it is completed (Energy Emissions) • Transportation demands created by the development after it is completed (Transportation Emissions) GHG Emissions Worksheet King County has developed a GHG Emissions Worksheet that can assist applicants in answering the SEPA Checklist question relating to GHG emissions. The SEPA GHG Emissions worksheet estimates all GHG emissions that will be created over the life span of a project. This includes emissions associated with obtaining construction materials, fuel used during construction, energy consumed during a buildings operation, and transportation by building occupants. Using the Worksheet 1 _ Descriptions of the different residential and commercial building types can be found on the second tabbed worksheet ("Definition of Building Types"). If a development proposal consists of multiple projects, e.g. both single family and multi -family residential structures or a commercial development that consists of more than on type of commercial activity, the appropriate information should be estimated for each type of building or activity. 2. For paving, estimate the total amount of paving (in thousands of square feet) of the project. 3. The Worksheet will calculate the amount of GHG emissions associated with the project and display the amount in the "Total Emissions" column on the worksheet. The applicant should use this information when completing the SEPA checklist. 4. The last three worksheets in the Excel file provide the background information that is used to calculate the total GHG emissions. 5. The methodology of creating the estimates is transparent; if there is reason to believe that a better estimate can be obtained by changing specific values, this can and should be done. Changes to the values should be documented with an explanation of why and the sources relied upon. 6. Print out the "Total Emissions" worksheet and attach it to the SEPA checklist. If the applicant has made changes to the calculations or the values, the documentation supporting those changes should also be attached to the SEPA checklist. Section I: Buildings Emissions Per Unit or Pei ilnusand (MTCO2e) Section II: Pavement .......................... Pavement ................ D.DD 0 Total Project Emissions: Version 1.7 12l26fD7 0 Square Feet (in Lifespan Type (Residential) or Principal Activity thousands of Emissions (Commercial) # Units s uare feet) Embodied Energy Trans ortation MTCO2e Single -Family Home ............................. 0 98 672 0 Multi-FamilyUnit in Large Building....... 0 33 35- 0 Multi-FamilyUnit in Small Building....... 0 54 681 0 Mobile Home ........................................ 0 41 475 0 Education ............................................ 0.0 39 046 0 Food Sales .......................................... 0.0 39 1.541 0 t1T Food Service ....................................... 0.0 39 1.334 0 Health Care Inpatient ........................... 0.0 3�i 1. 38 0 Health Care Outpatient ........................ 0.0 39 737 0 Lodging ................................................ 0.0 39 771 0 Retail Other Than Mall ....................... 0.0 39 5771 247 0 Office ................................................... 0.0 39 723 588 0 Public Assembl.................................. 0.0 39 33 15:7 0 Public Order and Safe ....................... 0.0 39 899 37� 0 Reli ions Worship............................... D.D 39 339 12 00 Service ................................................ 0.0 39 599 2u 0 Warehouse and Storage ...................... 0.01 3Dl 3521 181 0 Other ................................................... DA -,91 1.2781 2n,7 0 Vacant ......................................... 0.01 39 ' 6321 47 0 Section II: Pavement .......................... Pavement ................ D.DD 0 Total Project Emissions: Version 1.7 12l26fD7 0 N-finition of Buildina Tvnes Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial) Description Single -Family Home ................................... Unless otherwise specified, this includes both attached and detached buildings Multi -Family Unit in Large Building ............ Apartments in buildings with more than 5 units Multi-FamilyUnit in Small Building ...... .... Apartments in building with 2-4 units Mobile Home. ............. . ............. ............ Buildings used for academic or technical classroom instruction, such as elementary, middle, or high schools, and classroom buildings on college or university campuses. Buildings on education campuses for which the main use is not classroom are included in the category relating to their use. For example, administration buildings are part of "Office," dormitories are Education ...... "Lodging." and libraries are "Public Assembly.'' Food Sales ........................................... Buildings used for retail or wholesale of food Buildings used for preparation and sale of food and beverages for Food Service .. ........1.... _............... consumption. Health Care Inpatient _ _ .......... ........ Buildings used as diagnostic and treatment facilities for inpatient care. Buildings used as diagnostic and treatment facilities for outpatient care. Doctor's or dentist's office are included here if they use any type of diagnostic Health Care Out atient .... _ _ medical equipment (if they do not, they are categorized as an office building) Buildings used to offer multiple accommodations for short-term ar long-term Lod in ....................... ............ ........ residents, including skilled nursing and other residential care buildings. Retail Other Than Mall _ Buildincis used for the sale and display of goods other than food. Buildings used for general office space, professional offce, or administrative offices. Doctor's or dentist's office are included here if they do not use any type of diagnostic medical equipment (if they do, they are categorized as an Office ............ outpatient health care buildin Buildings in which people gather for social or recreational activities, whether in Public Assembly .......................... ........... private or non -private meeting halls. Public Order and Safety ...... ............... Buildings used for the preservation of law and order or public safety. Buildings in which people gather for religious activities, (such as chapels, Religious Worship ....... ........... ......... churches, mosques, synagogues. and temples). Buildings in which some type of service is provided, other than food service or Service .................. .............................. retail sales of goods Buildings used to store goods, manufactured products, merchandise, raw Warehouse and Storage ........... .............. materials. or personal belongings such as self storage) Buildings that are industrial or agricultural with some retail space; buildings having several different commercial activities that. together, comprise 50 percent or more of the floorspace, but whose largest single activity is agricultural, industrial/ manufacturing. or residential; and all other Other ... .............................. ................ miscellaneous buildings that do not fit into any other category. Buildings In which more foorspace was vacant than was used for any single commercial activity at the time of interview. Therefore, a vacant building may Vacant ................... ................ ............. have some occupied floorspace. Sources:........ Residential 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey Square footage measurements and comparisons http://www.eia.doe.govlemeu/recs/sqft-measure.html Commercial Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), Description of CBECS Building Types http:/fwww.eia, doe.gov/erne u/cbecs/pba99lbld9types. him I � �«gm;;m,mmmmmgmmmmmm to - { & k -- § ■�!; - � k�\ � \ c� \\:::::::�:��}}\:: § 2!j !t - { & k -- § - � � \ m v� c y a$w S ohm m0.- f9cm a° C O m C Q N p OR 4 C C a q c a N b@ N G U a C N y Q m C R N u yy a N c E m E� �°°Ww ]; 2'ng0 Es yoo am 4n m W� v E� C m U a 0: � N a �m �n iS�m �c Q.�m cw W nQr E m y ma a ° W '� E y m t m o mti E d ��Sv v5 �Sm� ^cp u°iEc d� E �cN 0m CWS m Uu. ia'- m9 aoHti a� W -go � a� c 04 0 m a� i. an o my o m co �ty .y ui K p._W c� ocs•: o@ Q �- r� .w y gr C u a O W L O aE U W O E Q y Cra N c W aVE W .Nm� c3 111 O m@ 3 E OZ.= O Y OOH yy m W an'1 @ W I- 7N d 9 _ _ 7 C f� C @ +% n N C O V T C E 6 m m .. °� m e p N N .�. a d 4 W E n�H@ c W'� = @�� c] $p x 0a caw wr-, VE W E�y� Nm '"'ocrn �$ m $a n� mp i2� TS �Q mo n NN Qc¢ U75 W - m e U' e_ o c w G M m m m a @ m _"Uo 5 c 9 cm m m QE � °ug �, me a aLL _ o� E m nnmW ° E E°L a W a� o m o aE = m ��_� Ld W �yX�o W.0 °x� mai p Smmm i gwEE y' E c5o o y o ] SEP v� �vr ocr c u v� °' b"m i` m"' �y So c nH = y o4 c� ym C mmW m c E@ m y c H Som -7.5 ° m o c q N m F as n'L'� d�-gym- vccv o�c o om' .'C'c �mn �� �o °wy$' 2a �`m L'+ @ q W= m W i o Q C W n a W m n �_ m cGWI q c] i9 UJ `o t+i m W o @ pEj t ❑ G w w o a C.r h W S c M v E U o w W m w ] m 5 E m W@ @ EU C c o W -S.s :�� °� -+� 2 r � m m @ 2 o. LU 8� 2E co] E 2V m m m L ° 0 p� � m E� m N E :E E t -69 � c ? � y m E S Q RkV m m�= cwE3wQTWL3 mE m2 MEm L E0o-2 cg. -5A? c o3 E m�OEms mm�g o0`CD E °t�$ Cia o= m is y y �>.rna' 3ac� .gym [��m Y W,� aUm .5, m m m ] � !n m �f1Ls W m C W ]�� B �p� d) C> m L w ELLJ F3 ps cm »W~ Y n�-0=->;--a mZ 3�° Ex E'en W� �mti'$ E'§ mZ.c]=ym om mm uap p w m �- S E v a.. w m L m$]° 0. E E N m w 3 �FL8 am `-�`mmWy]w E§o EaE a�mmoriL 3v $"$a cp�*vm wUmmlWcyc^-, WcoN'E m�a._�Uwm' mmE44ffi. ° G CmCw=a C3 C�g`mmou oFv eymoGE hAoE ma NpC d@= VrcE " Cmzm LL E mwm ym� '0 8:23 m o ' m E$ v c m w r n� p @ O,6 m C = Oi C bC?@ m O J W m C$ m N mr=3 fp N �j C W .m ��� @�WNT WTDdy NaCS,Cmw °m T.=m 6m x =2T6 En cE Nnm 91j-`yw mWp�°m 3m� mammUctvS 8 m-._._ x -mmmm y aci P m s E�'Ow Qo wa3.0wy mW° �ac=°m �rL cmmE EE5a ma0°o�ro E EmG .Eom xm E S E Q 'E c m m L W m E W W W 'IL m m W a H [� Z S m H W o 9 Sz m S'N m Q d E 0. LL M W m n° m N N N t� N m a0 �D v m h h h M M m m m N m N Nq nom' w S N N a a7a��MhhN Q a f0 47 m m 0 1' <+smr,mu; L htb C (-) W if o m pzru 0 c � 'y ❑ O ❑ n CL I .w w V p C Ol �} m ? m L jG N 7 Y_ h E pW D U a y m f r o ;Vi L q p rp J m w O L ° } a �'w 0+ laV C N M1 r iA W N m� O cD m � m N m N h �D NO Pin Wf� [Dmw NOiO Z ON 'OCD Nm amm C L) m C? f6 Y 1!1 SD 0 w r f� w90 YI f� vl O W m m N W C 'D So M1 r (p M1 M1 N O O M t� M h N N C � 4 O v o � n a 45 u n E R n � p ti R c C e - m a C N Vi Q lL Q LJcJ m i m ow J E m U] N n UD Yl Ll] Y] l() R •r f OO lii m h m N N N m m N N m fD [V N m !O N N SD m N lD N N W tp N N fD CD N N [D m � C Q '0 .7 m 7! R Cp N N a m a m* N q m y o L-� m r fp m U' lU R; N RF fy C tG m m 0 m N m N m 0 O a m 4YQ r r N N M m r r e} It m a s IC] r m N h O w N v U H m O L aro a- CD m m 0 m N m fh a (D fD 7 f0 w w a tT Vi re Lvov r N rrNOir m S7 r rau'im u'iON N U O H L � m Qv w�nm c 0co�-a R O m ,CT O O `m Y Li CL N N Rj m L r M1 h CL w m v. N a m ur d> N m 1p N a N 6h co N N r a W 03 �D [n n h ary N y m L+ 1p rN N N Ip m NS q ti Hc n C O w g C v .3 m 0 c) r m o 0 0 o O o O o o 0 0 0 0, O a Wu O ovhhNrr�+n i�Nr- M m L7 :� C? ('1 m -�vo� N moi' L7 f� oo; C6 (h Wic n_ E I E m w a p 3 V a = Z E . Q E C C cU :mm a 3 N pup � _ uci x � •� i i c k F i a c N c ' ID m E ID U- W R lL 0 O U oma' a ami aroi a �a RL i in21�wLLaxZ:3 w aa�uJ 4> 0 Z ly ^'a 0 N o O 'n � N = 0 1' L 4 o pzru 0 O ❑ n Z NI V p C Ol �} ul ? m L jG N 7 Y_ h E pW D U a y m f r o ;Vi L q p rp a ° } a �'w 110 a m 3 R c _ 6 3 ti 4 � 0 a O A R` j ti Z W � 0 m m a m o U R v N F 4 O q o � n a 45 u n E E u ti R c C e - m a C N Vi Q lL Q LJcJ m i 0 Z ly 2 3 cq ID \ � - f�) \\\ ]\§ \`k ~ /k (D \\\ \}�\ \ \ ncq On§}k ƒ_ )�| \ )\ 3 2 3 \\\ \\\ \\\ \}�\ � \\ \ o.0Oa mwZ C mZC04 ums r cmc N in tiTmao r M i --pp N r N J N E -.. row R 0[omltim Cl � � � A � n m Q V m V ca l� [O � N m y O b N uf'i m () m 4nO Cn IL} N h CO J C E O E Qp m V cm � rn'n in M LO Lo yV)W m vii m CO 0 w m w m J O N m C ti N Q N P7 V3 m N y 2 SC a) Vi r[OrYI QQO rm01 r1� D rn io - _ T 6 W .L r rn 0 - n eta in N M ai 6Y N N N R O r M o N ti PD co Q O n O C � v, -_ r w Un n w 4� N O fh Of O p 0 r a N Q m [o co M co O� N N Q m r ca F N ] 5 C N cu � O = C Q d a m ni rn a c5 O m Qi a m O� a Cr a CI P. m a a r� V Q C O q Q C3 mV V V V G V V�� V V' C V C V Q '7 vi oN 0 �' am ff a I di E V ,cam ar m V a , � > C, ° v Y w y" CLo y E E;. '7 a CL E a o f -0 r Lr, m p 0 C N p �, N 'C) E 6 � J C - 4- CaNr �iwio�ainil��cooavvmiv WrV F r� N Z �� 3 E p V ❑ � � � � � N C cf Q 2 C [C O p O. C 0 0) O �.. c D :k V �� y��- 0 v E o a) c u Y LL'�YL Z� tc'v cn� m E ; `C Q E `o m w 10 m CL OE .0 yc co 0 x U In zC C tQ- a v 5 0 . m m- -L, ' m m` N o ro E �s�m £ m m ? n 5 o CL U-ns m20— a n, N �4LL ai v)0 V QO p rp c—ID '° c0 4 C Lia C 5 O a c 'a 6 0 N w p 7 Q� fG �_ U CnrS W LOLL Z2J4'O4dR'fj��O> U ¢moi -' < Yt LL U � a a a 0 ti f. -o N c L N N t4 O N O U N n y Cr vUi w N y m U m r c X 2 N n? C 7 nt r- W N �I m O rn lit 6 ry N W O1 7 f0 c -U v a L N } BOG`. Rf s� o c Q r m 6 n N N > Q c7 al a) (L C] T 4 -] co N N z s 0 w t4' N U v F: :J U � a a a 0 ti f. -o ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 12 LIST OF REGULATED AIRPORTS Additional Resources Exhibit 12 Designated Primary and Commercial Service Airports in Idaho, Oregon and Washington Covered by 24 CFR Part 51D As of December 18, 2009 Attached is a revised list of designated primary and commercial service airports covered by 24 CFR Part 51D. A primary airport is one that serves at least .01 percent of all passengers enplaned at commercial service airports. Airports with scheduled service of 2,500 or more passengers enplaned are .listed as `Other Commercial Service Airports.' For a link directly to the Federal Aviation Administration's data, please visit: http://www.taa.gov/airports airtraffic/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_a licargo stats/passenger Please note that all military airports must be considered under HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 51(D); they are not included on this list. REGION/ AIRPORT STATE LOCATION IDAHO Primary Airports Location Boise Hailey Idaho Falls Lewiston Pocatello/Arbon Valley Twin Falls AIRPORT NAME Name Boise Air Terminal - Gowen Field Friedman Memorial Idaho Falls Regional Lewiston-Nez Perce County Pocatello Regional Joslin Field -Magic Valley Regional Other Commercial Service Airports None OREGON Primary Airports Location Name Eugene Mahlon Sweet Field Klamath Falls Klamath Falls Medford Rogue Valley International North Bend Southwest Oregon Regional Portland Portland International Redmond Roberts Field Salem McNary Field Other Commercial Service Airports Pendleton Eastern Oregon Regional WASHINGTON Primary Airports WA WA Bellingham Friday Harbor Pasco Port Angeles Pullman/Moscow, ID Seattle Seattle Spokane Walla Walla Wenatchee Yakima Bellingham International Friday Harbor Tri -Cities William R. Fairchild International Pullman -Moscow Regional Boeing Field/King County -Intl Seattle -Tacoma International Spokane International Walla Walla Regional Pangborn Memorial Yakima Air Terminal Other Commercial Service Airports East Sound Orcas Island General Aviation Airports with Enplanements over 2500* Kenmore Oak Harbor Kenmore Air Harbor Aj Eisenberg *Although not required by 24 CFR 51D, HUD encourages you to consider these busy airports ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 13 PERSONAL COMMUNICATION WITH CORY CAPPELLETTI, RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT 1CF ENTERNATIONAL ADDITIONAL RESOURCES EXHIBIT 13 Conversation Type: Phone Conversation Gil Cerise phone call to Cory Cappelletti, Renton Fire Report of Department, followed by an email from Cory Conversation Cappelletti to Gil Cerise Client: Renton Housing Authority Job: Hillcrest Terrace Community Building Environmental Assessment Project/Task 00630.10, Task 13 Number: Date: November 15, 2010 Time: 8:30 am Contact: Cory Cappelletti Fire Inspector 11 City of Renton fire Department Phone: 425-430-7000 Ext: ICF Gil Cerise Employee: Senior Planner Seattle, WA Phone: 206-801-2809 Ext: Subject: Above Ground Storage Tanks within 0.25 -miles of Hillcrest Terrace Community Building Project Site Gil Cerise contacted Cory Cappelletti previously (November 12, 2010) to request information on the presence of above -ground propane storage tanks of more than 100 gallons or more within the vicinity of the Hillcrest Terrace Community Building project site, as well as within a larger area being studied for a Draft Environmental Impact Statement being prepared at that time. Cory responded on November 15, 2010 by saying that he used both his personal knowledge of the area, as well as a review of permit history to determine that there were no commercial Report of Conversation Cappelletti pers. comm. Page 2 liquefied propane (LP) tanks in the area. He clarified that there were some businesses along Sunset Boulevard (approximately 0.25 -miles south of the project site) that sold or used small supplies of propane (e.g., Rhino tank sales for residents to use on their grills, jewelry stores using small hand-held propane tanks). However, amounts of propane are too small for consideration. Cory confirmed that there were no records of above -ground propane tanks within 0.25 miles of the Hillcrest Terrace Community Building project site, or the larger EIS area. He also could not think of any possible above ground propane tanks from his personal knowledge and history of working and living in the City of Renton. However, Cory did indicate that a City record indicated that Evergreen Place Retirement home (1414 Monroe Avenue NE), located on Monroe Avenue approximately 1.3 miles from the project site, had a city record indicating that there is propane used on the site. However, the permit did not specify the amount of propane stored on the site. See email communication from Rachel Chang, CH2MHill on November 22, 2010 for her follow- up on Evergreen Place. Part of Additional Resources Exhibit 13 Cerise, Gilbert From: Grueter, Lisa Sent: Monday, November 22, 2014 2:25 PM To: Cerise, Gilbert Subject: FW: Map of study area for propane tank question From: Rachel.Chang@CH2M.com [mailto:Rachel.Chang@CH2M.com] Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 1:08 PM To: Grueter, Lisa Subject: RE: Map of study area for propane tank question Hi Lisa, I contacted Evergreen Place, their phone number is 425-336-151.6. Gerald, the maintenance person indicated that Evergreen does have a propane tank which is used as a backup to the backup generator which uses natural gas as primary. He couldn't quite tell how big the tank is but the volume gauge only goes up to 95 gallons. So our best guess is it's less than 100 gallons, Based on this information, I am going to state that there's no propane gas greater than 100 gallons present in the area. Also Evergreen Place is 1/3 mile from Hillcrest 0.1 mile from eastern boundary of Study Area. By the way, according to Appendix G of HUD Siting Guideline http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/training/guidebooks/hazfacilities the acceptable separation distance for a 100 gallon above ground tank is 115 feet (0.02 mile) without blast barrier, if I read it correctly_ For 1000 gallon, it's 220 feet_ Ha=ard—means any stationary container which stores, handles or processes hazardous substances of an explosive or fire prone nature. The term "hazard" does not include pipelines for the transmission of hazardous substances, ifsuch pipelines are located underground or comply with applicable Federal, Stale and local safety standards. Also excepted arc- (1) Containers with a capacity of 100 gallons or less when they contain common liquid industrial fuels, such as gasoline, fuel oil, kerosene and crude oil since they generally would pose no danger in terms of thermal radiation of blast overpressure to a project; and (2) facilities which are shielded from a proposed HUD -assisted project by the topography, because these topographic features effectively provide a mitigating measure already in place. Rachel From: Grueter, Lisa [mailto:LGrueter@icri.com] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 3:43 PM To: Chang, Rachel/SFA Cc: Cerise, Gilbert Subject: FW: Map of study area for propane tank question Hi Rachel, Just thought I'd follow up on one topic since last Monday — Evergreen Place outside but near the study area was noted as having a propane permit but there was no record of its size and whether it is above ground or not. The facility is described at the following web link: http://www.holidaytgg_ h.com/Our-Communities/evergreen-place.aspx It is not an RHA facility. The phone number for the site is: 425-336-1516 Thanks, --Lisa From: Cerise, Gilbert Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 8:29 AM To: Grueter, Lisa Subject: RE: Map of study area for propane tank question FYI.... here is Cory's response to my email on Monday re: propane tanks. It sounds like they will only have records for the residential back to 1993. He checked the last 3-4 years — but not farther back. I'll contact him to see if he can review the permits back to 1993 for residential propane in our area. Thanks, Gil Cerise, AICP I Senior Planner 1206.801.2809 1 acerise(aicfi.corn I icfi.com ICF INTERNATIONAL 1 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550, Seattle, WA 98104 1 2.06.801.2899 (fax) Please consider the environment before prinbng this e-mail From: Cory Cappelletti[mailto:CCappelletti@Rentonwa,gov] Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 4:32 PM To: Cerise, Gilbert Subject: RE: Map of study area for propane tank question You are correct about what we said. I talked to Jan and she showed me how to check the Permits Plus program. It may not show where the residential tanks are but would show if permits were obtained to install any since 1993. What they have to do is pull up every LP gas permit given out annully then determine if it is in your area. So they will have to do at least 18 searches, then look at each of the addresses to determine the location. I looked at 3 or 4 years and found none in the area but ran out of time. If there are any older ones we may not know of their existence. From: Cerise, Gilbert [mailto:GCerise@icfi.com] Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 08:56 To: Cory Cappelletti Cc: Grueter, Lisa Subject: RE: Map of study area for propoane tank question Hi Cory: Thank you again for all your help! I just wanted to confirm my understanding per our conversation. It sounds like the businesses like jewelry stores with propane on the premises in the study area are those with small hand-held propane tanks — much smaller than the 100 gallons + we were looking for_ It also sounds like, though the likelihood is low of having propane tanks for heating residential, that the Building Department would have a record of that in PermitsPlus. Per your suggestion, I will call Jan Conklin as an initial contact to see if she can help me with a review of potential residential propane permits for above ground tanks of 100+ gallons in the study area. Please let me know if I got the above correct, Cory. Thanks again!!! Lisa -- FYI - In our conversation, Cory indicated that Evergreen Retirement home, across the street from the study area at Monroe Avenue (but outside the study area) has a propane permit. But, the Fire Dept. permit does not say whether it is for an above -ground tank, or for smaller scale use. Gil Cerise, AICP I Senior Planner 1 206.801.2809 1 aceriseei fi.com I icfi.com ICF INTERNATIONAL 1 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550, Seattle, WA 98104 1 206.801.2899 (fax) Please consider the envircmnent before printing this a -mail From: Cory Cappelletti[mailto:CCappelletti@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 7:55 AM To: Cerise, Gilbert Subject: RE: Map of study area for propoane tank question I did a check of the area and found that we have no record of any commercial LP tanks in the area. There are some businesses that sell the small Rhino tanks and a couple that use propane in their business_ (jewelery stores) The building department may be of help to find out if there are any residential tanks. From: Cerise, Gilbert [ma iIto: GCerise@icfi.com] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 16:24 To: Cory Cappelletti Cc: Grueter, Lisa Subject: Map of study area for propoane tank question Hi Corey: Thank you fortalking to me just now. Per our conversation, I am attaching a figure that shows the study area we are looking at for the EIS. Please use this in assessing how you can provide the list of propane tanks that are 100 gallons or more. Per our conversation, I understand that this is a pretty large task and that we will not get this information until Monday. It also sounds like we may need to do some culling of the data ourselves to eliminate some of the propane tank sites based upon how your data is stored_ Once you get a chance to review your data in comparison to our map, please feel free to tail me with any questions you may have. Thanks, Gil Cerise, AICD I Senior Planner 1 206.801.2809 1 gcerise(chicfi.com I icfi.Som ICF INTERNATIONAL 1 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550, Seattle, WA 98104 1 206.801.2899 (fax) Pic;.s^ �,(;r•,rst?, r s':te c�r;, ..,;�^,a�3t !!More Fri �ti�g t�;is e-mail From: SEA BizHubC550@jsanet.com[mailto:SEA_BizHubC550@jsanet.com] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:17 AM To: Cerise, Gilbert Subject: Message from KMBT 0550 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 14 PERSONAL COMMUNICATION WITH GRACE KIM, SCHEMATA WORKSHOP 1CF iNTERNAT1oNAL ADDITIONAL RESOURCES EXHIBIT 14 Conversation Type: Phone Communication Report of Gil Cerise discussion with Grace Kim, Architect, Conversation Schemata Workshop, Inc. Client: Renton Housing Authority .lob: Hillerest Terrace Community Building Environmental Assessment ProjectlTask 00630.10, Task 13 Number: Date: November 22, 2010 Time: Approximately 12:15 pm Contact: Grace Kim, AIA Architect and Project Manager for Hillcrest Terrace Community Building Consultant Team Schemata Workshop, Inc. Phone: 206-285-1589 Ext: ICF Gil Cerise Employee: Senior Planner Seattle, WA Phone: 206-801-2809 Ext: Subject: Project Proposal, Preapplication Notes, and Slopes on the Site Gil Cerise had a phone conversation with Grace Kim, the architect and project manager that Renton Housing Authority hired to design the proposed Hillcrest Terrace Community Building at 1430 Hillcrest Lane NE in Renton, Washington. Gil contacted Grace to obtain the City's preapplication notes as well as to confirm how the project may impact or be impacted by a small area of steep slope shown on the eastern edge of the property, adjacent to Kirkland Avenue NE on City of Renton Slopes Map. The City's Slopes map indicates that this small area is between 15-25% slope. Report of Conversation Kim pers. comm. Page 2 Grace confirmed that there is a sloped on the public right-of-way to the east of the site. There is a retaining wall at the grade change and the proposed Hillcrest Terrace Community Building will not be located in a slope area or buffer. The proposed building will not affect or be affected by this slope. Grace Kim followed up with an email that sent the City of Renton Preapplication comments from May 20, 2010 for the proposed Hillcrest Terrace Community Building. City of Renton Slope map and Preapplication comments are attached to this personal communication. Part of Additional Resource Exhibit 14 City of Renton Sensitive Areas Steep Slopes }' f r. ! N ti � s,.- rS � :A- i r- �� �J ✓ t� :I d 4 is ' ��- -�� ' li '. b i � Ze1 i � � � !r � .✓moi �y1 r 4 1 t .;:. 1 x `hra.w.Y• 1 i i P v I i - ' A _. . ` � t 1 xhr :F 1 1 1 .. I' S1 i �S r � !1 h E LA LL- •.� Fl I i 1 x '} - r �I T Public works Department RSteep Slopes Percentage Range G. Zimmerman, Administrator ❑ imo yam'... Technical Services X15% & —25% R. MacOnle, D.'isneski?25% & =40% Printed on May 21, 2009,,ar� Data Source_ Puhlic Works, Lltlllles Systems, Technical Services K >40% &-90% Renton City Limits K ,90% ---- "y"� r �e rwi,' Part of Additional Resources Exhibit 14 PREAPPLICATION MEETING FOR HILLCREST TERRACE COMMUNITY BLDG 1430 HZLLCREST LN NE CITY OF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Current Planning Division PRL I 0-01 9 May 20, 2010 Contact Information: Planner: Rocale Timmons Phone: 425.430.7219 Public Works Reviewer: Kayren Kittrick Phone: 425.430.7299 Fire Prevention Reviewer: Dave Pargas Phone: 425.430.7023 Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell Phone: 425.430.7294 Please .retain this packet throughout the course of your. project as a reference. Consider giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work on the project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for land use and/or environmental permits. 4 Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, cap and schedule an appointment with the project manager (planner) to have it pre- screened before making all of the required copies. The pre -application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided on the proposal are based on the codes and policies In effect at the time of review. The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of project submittal. The information contained in'this summary is subject to. modification and/op concurrence by official,decision-makers (e.g.,- Hearing e.g.;Hearing Examiner, Planning Director, Development Services Director, Department of CommOnity and Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council). CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU eMEMORANDUM DATE: May 20, 2010 TO: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Preliminary Comments for Hillcrest Terrace Community Building 1. The preliminary fire flow is 1,750 gpm. fire hydrants are reQuired. One within 150 -feet and one within 300 -feet of the building. Itappears adequate fire flow is available on Kirkland Avenue Northeast from an existing 8 -inch water main. Any exist! n used to satisfy the requirements shall most current fire code inu ing m storz fittings. 2. Fire mitigation fees are applicable at the rate of $0.52 per square foot of commercia�*nsetyk- 3. space. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 064- c li "k-1 Approved fire sprinkler and sprinkler monitoring systems arer' r�throughout the building. Separ a plans and permits required by the fire de pa men . A? rot rer-t'A--ov+l• 0coc-C 4. Fire departmen apparatus access roadways appear adequate. em 5. An electronic site plan is required prior to occupancy for pre -fire planning purposes. See attached sheet for the format in which to submit your plans. c,r:ct 1�pte 4XrrW%- , Alk, W�vf � IT - Me w1a i -P � . a r wi DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITYD i oe AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT toll (a M E M G R A N D U M DATE: May 13, 2010 TO: Rocale Timmons, Planning Division FROM: Kayren K. Kittrick, Development Engineering Supervisor A-1 SUBJECT: Utility and Transportation Comments Hillcrest Terrace Community Building Pre 10-019 Address: 1430 Hillcrest Lane ISE NOTE: The applicant is cautioned that Information contained In this summary is preliminary and non-binding and may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official city decision -makers. Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The following comments are based on the pre -application submittal made to the City of -Renton by the applicant. WATER 1. The site is currently served by the City of Renton water utility. 2. There is an 8 -inch diameter cast iron water line in Kirkland Avenue NE serving the st, -r;3, en property. A fire hydrant located on Hillcrest Lane NE is served by a 4 -inch main and has _less than 102gyam flow rate. It most likely cannot be counted to protect the proposed, building. 3. The project site is located in the 565 Water Pressure Zone. T9 4. The fire flow required for this project per the Fire Marshal's office is 1750 gpm. Fire flow availability to the site is approximately 2200 gpm from the existing main with the controlling factor being the limit on velocity in mains to 8 feet/second and appears to be adequate for the proposed design. S. Two fire hydrants are required for this proposed building: one hydrant within 150 feet of the proposed building, and an additional hydrant within 300 feet of the building. All hydrants counted towards service for this building require a 5" Storz adaptor (quick disconnect fitting). Lk 5. A Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) may be required downstream of the service meter. The PRV shall be privately maintained. 7. In addition to the fire hydrant(s), a sprinkler/alarm system i requ r forth e proposed development requiring a separate meter sized a ro and a separate perm 8. The proposed building is required to have separate water service(s) and meter{s). Flliicrest Terrace Ornmunfty Building Pre 10-019 Page 2 of 2 May 13, 2010 9. A Water System Development Charge is based on the total size of water met r sj l needed to service the proposed building. This flee is due when a building or construction permit is issued. 10. An additional fire service permit and fee is applicable for fire sprinkler supply connection. SANITARY SEWER 1. The site is served b inch iarneterandary sewer lines both in Hillcrest Lane NF and Kirkland Avenue NE. $e*llc�� . 2. If the proposed commercial kitchen is designated to serve food rease tra r , intercg= meeting the approval of the Wastewater Utility may be required. 3. A minimum 6 -inch side sewer connection to service the building is required. � •� �� 4. The Sewer System Development Charge is triggered and determined by the water meter size. This fee is due when a building or construction permit is issued. VH- CA^ SURFACE WATER 1. 2. 3. The site is located in the Honey Creek/May Creek drainage system. y►tif-. A preliminary drainage plan, addressing the redevelopment detention and water quality requirements in accordance with the 2009 KCSWDM as adopted and amended by the City of Renton, is required. The site is mapped within the "Peak Rate Flow Control Standard".j� ek P4NbS �h C�k*rD ( The Surface Water Syste Development Charge is based on $0.405 per square foot of new impervious surface area ora minimum $1,012. This fee Is due when a building or construction permit is issued. 1. The traffic mitigation fee does not apply. 2. All street improvements are currently in place. Any restoration of damage in the course of construction is required to match the existing infrastructure. GENERAL COMMENTS t 1. A construction permit will be required forall utility work. (,l;� rias yl�.+C^ .,* [LMC. 2. Staff member assigned to contact for further questions and project review: Arneta Henninger, 425.430-7298 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 20, 2010 TO: Pre -application Fite No. 10-019 FROM: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Hilicrest Terrace Community Building --1438 Hillcrest Ln NE General We have completed a preliminary review of the pre -application for the above -referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting Issues are based on the pre -application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes In effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decislon-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator, Development Services Director, Public Works Administrator, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant' is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or on the Citys website www.rentonwa.aov Project Proposal The subject property is located on the west side of Kirkland Ave NE between NE 20'' and NE le Street. The project site consists of 4.74 acres of R-14 zoned property with four multi -family structures totaling 60 residential units. The proposal is to construct a new one story, 2,600 square foot, community building for the Renton Housing Authority's Hillcrest Terrace Apartment Complex. The community building would contain two bathrooms, kitchen space, a 100 person dining space, and a relocated laundry room from elsewhere on site. The site of the proposed structure is currently open space and an existing rose garden. It does not appear surface parking is proposed to change as a result of the proposal. Access to the site would continue to be provided via Hillcrest Lane NE which is extended from Kirkland Ave NE. The site is located within Aquifer Protection Area. Current Use: The site currently contains four existing one-story structures, containing 60 multi -family residential units, which are proposed to retain. Zoning: The property is located within the Center Village (CV) land use designation and the Residential -14 (R-14) zoning designation. The property is subject to the Residential Design and Open Space Standards. Proposals should have unique, identifiable design treatment in terms of landscaping and building design. The proposed community building would be allowed as an accessory use, in the R-34 zone, to the residential units currently on site. Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-110A, "Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations" effective at the time of complete application (noted as "R-14 standards" herein). A copy of these standards is Included herewith. Hillcrest Terrace Community Building May 20, 2010 Fuge 2 of 4 U0 Type of Standard Minimum Standard Proposed Minimum Lot Sire, Width and Depth None Not applicable SetbacksA 1114 — Front Yard 8 ft to buliding 22 ft Side Yard 4 ft 6 ft at the closest point Rear Yard 12 ft 20 ft Side Yard Along -A -Street None Not Applicable Building Standards Building Coverage Ratio Mone Not Applicable Height 30 ft Unknown Impervious Surface 85% Unknown Refuse and Recycle Recycle: 3 SF / 1,000 GSF Refuse: 6 SF / 1,000 GSF *A minimum area of 100 SF shall be provided for recycling and refuse deposit areas. Unknown Parking Vehicular 60 spaces Not Applicable Bicycle 30 spaces Not Applicable Landscaping On -Site Street Frontage loft *Except for walk and driveways and those zones with building setbacks less than la. In those cases, 10' of landscaping shall be required where buildings are not located. Unknown Tree Retention 10 % of significant trees Unknown ROW Street Frontage Not Applicable Not Applicable Front Yard Trees 2 trees � I. . Unknown Minimum Lot Size. Width and Deoth The proposal does not appear to alter the existing lot lines. Setbacks— It appears the proposal complies with the setback requirements of the zone. Duildl!]g Standards - It is unclear whether or not the building standards area would comply with the requirements of the code. Building elevation ev� ation and detailed descriptions of elements and building materials are required with your building permit review submittal. Refuse and Recycling Areas — Refuse and recycling areas are required to meet the requirements of RMC 4- 4-090, "Refuse and Recyclables Standards* (enclosed). eased on the proposal for 2,500 square feet of non-residential area; a minimum area of 100 SF shall be provided for recycling and refuse deposit areas. It is unclear whether or not the refuse and recycle area would comply with the requirements of the code. Hillcrest Terrace Community Building May 10, 2010 Page 3 of 4 Parking if the proposed community building would solely be used by the residents on site the proposal would not generate additional vehicular trips. Therefore additional parking would not be required. However, the applicant is e m ed to provide bleleck eEnktF in an amount suffident to meet the needs of the residents on site, nat- Landscaping -- Except for critical areas, all portions of the development area not covered by structures, required parking, access, circulation or service areas, must be landscaped with native, drought -resistant vegetative cover. it is unclear whether or not the proposed landscaping would comply with the requirements of the code. A detailed landscape plan and landscape analysis meeting the requirements In RMC 4-8-120D.22, shall be submitted at the time of building permit application. If the applicant intends to install any fences as part of this project, the location must be designated on the landscape plan. A fence detail should also be included on the plan as well. Please refer to landscape regulations (RMC 44-070) and the design criteria (RMC 4-3-100) for further general and specific landscape requirements (enclosed). Access -There are no proposed changes to access. Driveway widths are limited by the driveway standards, in RMC 4,40801. Residential Design and Open Space Standards Compliance with Residential Design and Open Space Standards, pursuant to RMC 4-2-115 (enclosed) Is required. if the minimum standards cannot be met the applicant would be required to. demonstrate compliance with the Intent of the Residential Design and Open Space Standards. The following bullets are a few of the standards outlined In the regulations which are required to be incorporated into the site design: PM19L0 • For each unit In the development, 350 SF of common open space shall Te provided. (,,e; e— +b • "a 9VThe entry shall take access from and face a street, park, common green, pocket park, pedestrian easement, or open space. • The prima buildin elevation oriented t ward the street or common green shall have at least one kmw WWI articulation or change in plane of at least 2 feet in depth 404 + Primary windows shall be proportioned y2.rUgli.y, rather than horizontally J," Q� i • Primary roof pitch shall be a minimum six to twelve (6:12) =;�? ".t - =-�' L -K IW-gLM At least one of the following architectural details shall be provided on each structure: shutters, knee braces, flower boxes, or columns +here siding is used, metal corner clips or corner boards shall be used and shall be at minimum 2 % inches in width and painted. If shutters are used, they shall be proportioned to the window size to simulate the ability to cover them Multiple colors on buildings shall be provided. Muted deeper tones, as opposed to vibrant primary colors, shall be the dominant colors. Color palettes for all new structures, coded to the home elevations, shall be submitted for approval Critical Areas The site is located within the Acifer Protection Area. 7"he applicant will be required, at the time of engineering permit application, to provide a fill source statement There appears to be no other critical areas on site. If there is any indication of critical areas on the site, this must be disclosed to the City prlor to development and appropriate studies must be undertaken. Hillcrest Terrace Community Building may 20, 2010 ik Page 4 of 4 Permit Requirements The applicant would need only to apply for a minor Site Plan Modification, building permit and possible utility construction permits. The applications would be reviewed concurrently In an estimated time frame of 4 weeks once a complete application is accepted. There is no fee for minor Site Pian Modifications. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees in attached for your review. Impact Mitigation Fees in additionito the applicable building and construction fees, the following mitigation fees would be required prior to the issuance of building permits. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 15 PERSONAL COMMUNICATION WITH NATE LINVILLE, PUGET SOUND ENERGY INTERNAT€ONAL ADDITIONAL RESOURCES EXHIBIT 16 Conversation Type: Telephone Communication Report of Gil Cerise discussion with Nate Linville, Engineer, Conversation Puget Sound Energy Client: Renton Housing Authority Job: Hillcrest Terrace Community Building Environmental Assessment ProjectlTask 00630.10, Task 13 Number: Date: December 15, 2010 Time: Approximately 1:30 and 3:00 pm Contact: Nate Linville Engineer Puget Sound Energy Phone: 253-395-6911 Ext: cell: 253-970-7284 SCF Gil Cerise Employee: Senior Planner Seattle, WA Phone: 206_801-2809 Ext: Subject: Ability for Puget Sound Energy to Accommodate Proposed 2,200 Square Foot Hillcrest Community Building Gil Cerise had a conversation with Nate Linville, Engineer from Puget Sound Energy regarding the ability for Puget Sound Energy to accommodate the energy needs of an approximately 2,200 square foot community/laundry building at Hillcrest Terrace in Renton, Washington. Gil was referred to Nate Linville by Dave Namura, Puget Sound Energy Community Relations Manager (425-462-3753) to answer this question. Nate asked several questions about the proposed building: Report of Conversation Linville pers. comm. Page 2 1. Will it be on electric and natural gas? 2. What is the proposed kilowatt load of the building? 3. Will it be single-phase or 3-phase? 4. What is the exact location of the building? When prompted, Nate asked what the neighboring buildings will be. Gil indicated that the new proposed building would be located between one multi -family building that was addressed as 1430-1454 Hillcrest Lane NE and another addressed as 1456- 1486 Hillcrest Lane NE. The building would be located between Hillcrest Lane NE and Kirkland Avenue NE. Gil indicated he would need to obtain additional information about the building from Schemata Workshop architect, Grace Kim. Grace indicated that the building is proposed as an all electric building, but would confirm that with her subconsultant, Jay Jack from Cierra. Jay Jack replied in an email (see attached) with information that Gil used to call Nate Linville back with at approximately 3:00 pm. Gil shared the information provided by Grace and Jay with Nate Linville. Nate indicated that the proposed building would be able to connect into one of two nearby transformers (one across the street from Kirkland Avenue NE, and the other located to the north), and that Puget Sound Energy would be able to accommodate the new structure into the power grid. Cerise, Gilbert From: Jay Jack [JJack @cierra.biz] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 2:54 PM To: Grace Kim Cc: Cerise, Gilbert Subject: RE: RHA Hillcrest - elect questions When air conditioning was in the scope we were calling for 208V 3-phase power. This seemed preferable in order to go with commercial grade HVAC equipment. I believe we are free to consider 120/240V single-phase. With single phase we would be calling for 400A rated service equipment, but the peak calculated demand should not exceed 65KW, which is less than 300 Amps. This assumes the washer/dryers are electric. It also assumes electric heat. If we go with gas heat and no air conditioning a 200 Amps service would work, even with single phase. Let me know if you need more information than this. Jay Jack, PE Y sierra Electrical Group, Inc. 206.442.0112 (ext 100) www.cierra.biz From: Grace Kim [mai Ito: grace@schemataworkshop.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 2:26 PM To: Jay Jack Cc: gcerise@icfi.com Subject: RHA Hillcrest - elect questions Jay — We're just wrapping up the environmental assessment for RHA Hillcrest and Puget Sound Energy had some electrical questions for the consultant. Could you please call Gil Cerise at ICF to help him out with those questions (See below). 801.2809 acerise(aicfi.com Questions 1) single phase vs 3-phase? 2) what is anticipated kilowatt load for bldg? He also asked about gas vs electric. I know we haven't gotten that far re: design, but my recollection was that we were looking at all electric for heat and water. Does this sound correct? Do you recall our conversations related to washer/dryers? I would imagine electric for those as well. But please confirm. grace h k i m aia sc'nemata .vorkshop inc. architect & cofounder 206.285,1589 172012th ave #3 seattle wa 98122 grace@schemataworkshop.corn www.schemataworkshop.com hlog what's what in our world Part of Additional Resources Exhibit 16 Puget Sound Energy Service Area Combined electric and natural gas service Electric service Natural gas service Puget Sound Energy's service area: Electric Service: all of Island, Kitsap, Skagit, Thurston, and Whatcom counties; parts of Jefferson, King (not Seattle), Kittitas, and Pierce (not Tacoma) counties. Natural Gas Service: parts of King (not Enumclaw), Kittitas (not Ellensburg), Lewis, Pierce (not Buckley), Snohomish, and Thurston counties. 1213 0711 D Washington state's oldest and largest energy utility, with a 6,000• -square -mile service area stretching across 11 counties, Puget Sound Energy serves more than 1 million electric customers and nearly 750,000 natural gas customers, primarily in the Puget Sound region of Western Washington. PSE meets the energy needs of its growing customer base through incremental, cost-effective energy efficiency, low-cost procurement of sustainable energy resources, and far-sighted investment in the energy -delivery infrastructure. For more information, visit PSE.com. PUGET SOUND ENERGY WHATCOM BELLINGHAN SAN- ____,. ..``\--------------------------------------------- -------- ANACORTES - -� MOUNT VERNON SKAGIT ' OAK HARBOR ISLANQ `,�--------------•-------------------•--•- ' -- PORr SNOHOMISH �.'e; � ,—;IQWHSEND ,�,' �EATMSVILLE , LANGLEY, L?.LL .�4'r EVERETT 1. .f IN INDEX -------------- ------------- ----------- EDMONDS MONROE JEFFERSON .................. ------------ --------- ........ - BAINBRIDGE..REDIN?ND ------------- - ISLAND• -�.. .BEUEOM ----_____ BREMERTON,'SEATTLE -' KING •; ...............-•--"_; KITSAP�-, J�•RENTON 'NORTH BEND e .,..-.,.. KIENT ;GIG�SrtRBGI� AUWRMI •y. : BLACK DIAMOND G-,4.�Y7 I"rnr«C7� it ,i _ _ • CLEE[U!k .TAGa*k. `r;ARBORSHELfOfi '� \ `- • P"ALLUP ENUMCLAw - KITTITAS .K ... - OLYMIM ELLfit'1 RG PIERCE SAS - tHURSTON - ------------ • _,.. •------ ; - " CENTRAM CHEHALIS ...-, LEWIS w .. ._.____-_ ---------------------------'f-._-.._________--_---, _. � ASA HX 1', K LI Nr,-:sc , COVULITS Combined electric and natural gas service Electric service Natural gas service Puget Sound Energy's service area: Electric Service: all of Island, Kitsap, Skagit, Thurston, and Whatcom counties; parts of Jefferson, King (not Seattle), Kittitas, and Pierce (not Tacoma) counties. Natural Gas Service: parts of King (not Enumclaw), Kittitas (not Ellensburg), Lewis, Pierce (not Buckley), Snohomish, and Thurston counties. 1213 0711 D Washington state's oldest and largest energy utility, with a 6,000• -square -mile service area stretching across 11 counties, Puget Sound Energy serves more than 1 million electric customers and nearly 750,000 natural gas customers, primarily in the Puget Sound region of Western Washington. PSE meets the energy needs of its growing customer base through incremental, cost-effective energy efficiency, low-cost procurement of sustainable energy resources, and far-sighted investment in the energy -delivery infrastructure. For more information, visit PSE.com. PUGET SOUND ENERGY ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 16 PERSONAL COMMUNICATION WITH JIM WILDER, ICF NOISE AND AIR SPECIALIST 1CF INTERNATIONAL ADDITIONAL RESOURCES EXHIBIT 16 Conversation Type: In Person Communication Report of Gil Cerise discussion with Jim Wilder, ICF Air and Conversation Noise specialist Client: Renton Housing Authority Job: Hillcrest Terrace Community Building Environmental Assessment Project/Task 00630.10, Task 13 Number: Date: November 12, 2010 Time: Approximately 4:00 pm Contact: Jim Wilder Noise and Air Quality Specialist ICF International Phone: 206-801-2832 Ext: ICF Gil Cerise Employee: Senior Planner Seattle, WA Phone: 206-801-2809 Ext: Subject: Classification of Hillcrest Terrace Community Building for purposes of Noise Sensitivity Gil Cerise had a conversation with Jim Wilder, ICF International Noise and Air Quality Specialist, in the ICF International Seattle office regarding the classification of an accessory laundry and community building proposed for the Hillcrest Terrace site. Gil presented Jim with a "Noise Abatement and Control Checklist for HUD or Responsible Entity" (see attached to this personal communication) to review and also described the proposed project as a new, separate building that would provide accessory services such as community laundry, common kitchen area, and community meeting space for the existing Hillcrest Terrace Renton Housing Authority property. Report of Conversation Wilder pers. comm. Page 2 Jim indicated that in his professional opinion the proposed building did not constitute a noise - sensitive use. Occupants of the facility would not rely upon quiet, as would a residence or other place where people would require quiet to sleep. Another example of a noise sensitive use could be a library. The uses occurring in the proposed community building would not rely upon quiet for their function. Gil asked Jim if, based on this conversation, he could check the "No" box on "Noise Abatement and Control Checklist for HUD or Responsible Entity" checklist, and Jim indicated that that would be the appropriate response (see attached). Noise Abatement and Control Checklist for HUD or Responsible Entity General requirements Legislation Regulation Encourage land use patterns for Noise Control Act of 1972 24 CFR Part 51 Subpart B housing and other noise sensitive The Quiet Communities Act of 1978 Noise Guidebook urban needs that will provide a as amended suitable separation between them OMB Circular 75-2, "Comparable and major noise sources Land Uses at Federal Airfields" 1. Is the project for new construction, purchase or resale of existing, modernization, or rehabilitation of noise sensitive use (i.e., housing, mobile home parks, nursing homes, hospitals, and other non -housing uses where quiet is integral to the project's function, e.g., libraries)? ®No: STOP here. The project is not subject to the noise standards. Record your determination that the project is not subject to the noise standards in your ERR. F-1 Yes: PROCEED to #2 2. Is the project located within 1,000 feet of a busy road or highway, 3,000 feet of a railroad, or 15 miles of a civil airport or military airfield? Are there any other potential noise sources in the project vicinity that could produce a noise level above HUD's acceptable range, including but not limited to concert halls, night clubs, event facilities, etc.... ? ❑ Maintain, in your ERR, a trap that identifies the location of any noise sources. ❑No: STOP here. Record your determination. You do not need to calculate a specific noise level. ❑Yes: PROCEED to 43 3. Determine the actions to take based on the project and HUD Acceptability Standards. Is the activity for: ❑ Construction of new noise sensitive use. Calculate noise using HUD standards or online tool: http://www,hud.gov/offices'cpd/environinent/dnlcalculator.cfm PROCEED to 3.a ❑ Purchase or resale of otherwise acceptable existing buildings (existing buildings are either more than 1 year old or buildings for which this is the second or subsequent purchaser). Noise calculation not required. HUD or RE determines need based on their evaluation of project. Proceed to 3.b ❑Modernization. Noise calculation not required. HUD or RE determines need based on their evaluation of project. Proceed to 3.c ❑Major or substantial rehabilitation (use the definition contained in the specific program guidelines). Calculate noise using HUD standards or online tool: httpa/wwu_hud.Qov/offices/cpd/environment/dnlcalculator.ctin Proceed to 3.d 1 of 2 FRJD Region X Environmental Office -February 2010 HUD General Acceptability Standards HUD determination Day night average sound level in decibels (dB) Acceptable Not exceeding 65 dB Normally Unacceptable Above 65 dB but not exceeding 75dB Unacceptable Above 75 dB + 1 of 2 FRJD Region X Environmental Office -February 2010 Noise Abatement and Control Checklist for HUD or Responsible Entity a. New Construction Is the Day -Night average sound level: ❑ Above 75 dB. Construction of new noise sensitive uses is generally prohibited, an EIS is required prior to the approval. The Assistant Secretary or Certifying Officer may waive the EIS requirement in cases where noise is the only environmental issue and no outdoor sensitive activity will take place on the site. (Under § Part 50 approval is required of the Assistant Secretary for CPD, under § Part 58 the Certifying Officer must provide approval). Document the ERR. ❑ Above 65 dB but not exceeding- 7� Construction of new noise sensitive uses is discouraged — all new projects require special environmental reviews and may require special approvals prior to construction (except when the threshold has been shifted to 70 dB as described below). Information is provided at 51.104 (b)(1). Document ERR include the special review and approval. Document attenuation if approved. ❑ Not exceeding 65 dB. (this threshold may be shifted to 70 dB on a case-by-case basis when 6 specific conditions are satisfied as described at Section 51.105(a)). Noise levels are acceptable. Document the ERR b. Purchase or Resale of Existing Building Is the Day -Night average sound level above the acceptable level? ❑Yes. Consider environmental noise as a marketability factor when considering the amount of insurance or assistance that will be provided to the project? Noise exposure by itself will not result in the denial of HUD support for the resale and purchase of otherwise acceptable existing buildings. Record your determination in the ERR. ❑No. Record your determination in the ERR c. Modernization Is the Day -Night average sound level above the acceptable level? ❑Yes. Encourage noise attenuation features in alterations. Record your determination in the ERR. ❑No. Record your determination in the ERR d. Major or Substantial Rehabilitation Is the Day -Night average sound level: ❑Above 75 dB. HUD or the RE shall actively seek to have project sponsors incorporate noise attenuation features, given the extent and nature of the rehabilitation being undertaken and the level of exterior noise exposure and will strongly encourage conversion of the noise exposed sites to land uses compatible with the high noise levels. Document the ERR. EJAbove 65 dB but not exceeding 75 dB. HUD or the RE shall actively seek to have project sponsors incorporate noise attenuation features, given the extent and nature of the rehabilitation being undertaken and the level of exterior noise exposure Document ERR. ❑ Not exceeding 65 dB. (this threshold may be shifted to 70 dB on a case-by-case basis when 6 specific conditions are satisfied as described at Section 51.105(a)). Noise levels are acceptable. Document the ERR. DISCLAIMER: This document is intended as a tool to help Region X HUD grantees and HUD staff complete environmental requirements. This document is subject to change. This is not a policy statement, refer to the 24CFR Part 51 Subpart B and the Noise Guidebook for specific guidance. 2 of 2 HUD Region X Environmental Office — February 2010 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 17 RENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY WEBSITE Additional Resources Exhibit 17 oN HOtJs�NC RENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY P.O. Box 2316 • Renton, WA 98056-0316 Office 425/226-1850 • Fax 4251271-6319 RAMA r'ryywww.rentonhousin2.orz TTY 1-800-833-6388 Section 8 Pa ment standards: Effective 10/01110 for New Leases ana Keg. Annual uertmcatlons, Keso 234b-zu-iu. 0 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms 5 Bedrooms $772 $880 $1,060 $1,497 $1,829 $2,103 Renton Housing Authority public housing LIPH, . Unit Size Priority One Interviewing for application 1 1August 1F+."' 7" 2006 � 7,',7, '17"'T Date Built Security Hs. Type #Units Count RHA No. Deposit 1978 4-01 = 1gt Mo. (CRT) CEDAR RIVER TERRACE, 51 Burnett S. Senior must be over thea a of 62 to be eligible (HUD -4350,3 CHC -24) pBased 72 rent (GP) GOLDEN PINES APTS., 2901 NE 10`x` Senior pBased s ub5 53 1976 11 D1 = 1, mo. rent must be over thea a of 62 to be eligible (Hill] -4350-3 CHG-24) (ST) SUNSET TERRACE, 970 Harrington NE Family Public Hsg 100 1960 1-01 $250 CM COLE MANOR 2811 NE 4th ( ) Family Public Hsg 28 1981 1-05 $250 (HC HILLCREST TERRACE, 1442 Hillcrest Ln NE ) Elderly Public Hsg 60 1966 1-02 $150 must be over the age of 62 or disabled to be el i ible EG EVERGREEN TERRACE, 3027 NE 15"' ( } elder y Public Hsg subT 5Q =23$ 196$ 1-03 $150 must be over thea a of 62 or disabled to be eligible Family (CP) CEDAR PARK APTS. 408 Monroe NE 4271-7482 Affordable 244 1981 #5 $300 DOC Appty at onsite Office, Studio$650 1 BRS765, 2BR$875 (income>X2 112) Local prgm (HT) HOUSER TERRACE, 3151 NE 16`h Senior 1993 6-01 $200 $350 min $700 max rent. Over age of 62 or 55 and disabled eligibility Local Prgm 104 Affordable Housing_ Highland Hs 2825 NE 121h (15 units), Family Varies $300-$500 Chantelle 2828 NE 3rd (17), Btickshire 1317 Edmonds Ave NE Local Prgm 67 =415 PHA 12-01 (12), and 4 -Flex � 3000 NE 15" ST, 4-plex YWCA, Vision House 15 project -based units #425-228-6356 Tax Credit Liberty Square 5'h & Wms 92 units affordable Subtotal 870 Code SECTION S Vouchers allocated to RHA leased 315 PHA 9 RHA PHA 99 Port -ins SECTION 8 Vouchers here from other PHAs leased 477 TOTAL 1,662 Section 8 Pa ment standards: Effective 10/01110 for New Leases ana Keg. Annual uertmcatlons, Keso 234b-zu-iu. 0 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms 5 Bedrooms $772 $880 $1,060 $1,497 $1,829 $2,103 Renton Housing Authority public housing LIPH, . Unit Size Priority One Interviewing for application 1 1August 1F+."' 7" 2006 � 7,',7, '17"'T re?ay�' I 1 II II � Im February 2005 NIL Section 8 Waitlist is Presently CLOSED*. S8 Waitlist Total: 221* RHA Comm unitiesWaitlists,doc Renton Housing Authority established September 10, 1941 Print Date 9/1812010 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 18 SCENIC AND WILD RIVERS WEBSITE National Wild & Scenic Rivers Page 6 of 7 Additional Resources Exhibit IS Excerpt from NWSR website showing Washington State rivers • Clarion River ....................... • 6z1ati,2.1:?._.Rivei..Loyaei} (See also New Jersey) • DelawareRiver it.:Iddle) (See also New Jersey) National,.Park Service Sita • Delaware_Rwe..i tUpper) (See also New York} -National Park,Se Lice Sita. . White Clay Creek (See also Delaware) Puerto Rico • Rio Nv1_alneyes.— U.S._Forest Service Site • Rio de la Mina — U.S. Forest Service Site W..,..... - - -. .............. . • Rio.I_cacos—U.S. ForestServ_ic_e Site Top of th_e Page Top of the_Page South Carolina . Chattoo-ga River (See also Georgia, North Carolina) — U_ S. Forest Service Site, Chattooga Net Top of the Page South Dakota • Missouri River (See also Nebraska) — National Park Service Site • Missouri River (See also Nebraska) — National Park Service Site Top of the Pie Tennessee • Obed River — National Park Service Site Toop of the Page Texas . RioGrande — National Park Service. Site, Rio Grande.in_Biq.Berad National Park Top of the Page Utah . Vir in REver Tributaries Washington • Klickitat River • Skagit fiver— U,S. Forest Ser„v.,ice..site • White Salmon River West Virginia . Bluestone River--- National Park Service Site Top of the Page Top of the Page _Top of the Page Wisconsin •St. Croix_Riv_e_r_(Lower) (See also Minnesota) — National Park Service Site •St. Croix_Rivef UUpaer] (See also Minnesota) —National Park Service Site • St.. Croix _Riv_er (Lower (See also Minnesota) • Wolf River Topof the Page Wyoming http,Hwww.rivers.gov/wildriverslist.html 12/16/2010 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 19 SEATTLE -KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Renton Public Hcalth Center Page I of 3 Additional Resources Exhibit 19 HOME NEWS SERVICES DIRECTORY CONTACT Searcti Public Health - Seattle & King County You're in: Public Health home » Public Health Centers and other once locations » F'.s PRINT SITEMAP Public Health home 2011 Pubtic Health Budget Renton Public Health Center Notice. of_P.O.Yacy .Practices This notice describes how medical Public Heafth Centers and other office locations Birch Creek, Kent Auburn Columbia City, S. Seattle Downtown Seattle Eastgate, Bellevue East Hill, Kent Federal Way North Seattle Northshore, Bolheh Renton White Center. W. Seattle Dental ciinics Family planning clinics HIV/STD clinics Immunization clinics Pubic Health Nurses Teen health clinics Travel immunization clinic Community health centers Mu€tiple language materials Board of Health Birth and death records Child and youth health Chronic diseases Codes, regulations and other jurisdictions Communicable diseases and immunization Data, publications and reports Digital Library Fnvkronmental health services Emergency preparedness Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Injury and violence prevention Medical examiner Renton Public Health Center Hours 3001 NE 4th St. open: • Monday - Friday: 8 am to 5 pm Find a bus neorest the Renton Public Health Center using Google Maps On the left side of the map screen, click on the Directions link. Enter your starting point and be sure the drop down menu is selected for "By public transit" then press the Get Directions button. The map will provide instructions on which buses to take from your point of origin. Renton Dental Clinic 10700 SE 174th St., Suite 101 [ MAP ] Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 206-296-4955 Hours open: • Monday - Friday: 8 am to 5 pm . Clients served: 1 through 18 years, adults 60 years and older, and pregnant women by referral only. Find_a_bus nearest the-Renten_Publc Health Dental Clinic using -Google Maps 0n the left side of the map screen, click on the Directions link. Enter your starting point and be sure the drop down menu is selected for "By public transit" then press the Get Directions button. The map will provide instructions on which buses to take from your point of origin. information about you may be used and disclosed and how you can get access to this information. Please review it carefully. See also Free_or.lo.w-cost health. insurance For Washington State residents, find out if you qualify for free or low cost health insurance through the Washington State Basic Health Plan or Medicaid. Breast and cervical health Learn how to get a free breast and cervical cancer screening for low- income women in Washington State. Breastfeeding resources_ in King County Detailed fact sheets on breastfeeding methods, a listing of lactation clinics and breast pump rental stations in King County. Tobacco_ prevention Learn about Public Health's efforts to promote King County businesses to be smoke-free. Travel clinic A Public Health travel clinic nurse provides information and emphasizes the best ways to prevent travel -related illnesses as well as provides the recommended vaccinations for your travel itinerary. http://www.kingeounty.gov/healthservices/health/locations/renton.aspx 12/16/2010 riy i � Renton Public Health Center Hours 3001 NE 4th St. open: • Monday - Friday: 8 am to 5 pm Find a bus neorest the Renton Public Health Center using Google Maps On the left side of the map screen, click on the Directions link. Enter your starting point and be sure the drop down menu is selected for "By public transit" then press the Get Directions button. The map will provide instructions on which buses to take from your point of origin. Renton Dental Clinic 10700 SE 174th St., Suite 101 [ MAP ] Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 206-296-4955 Hours open: • Monday - Friday: 8 am to 5 pm . Clients served: 1 through 18 years, adults 60 years and older, and pregnant women by referral only. Find_a_bus nearest the-Renten_Publc Health Dental Clinic using -Google Maps 0n the left side of the map screen, click on the Directions link. Enter your starting point and be sure the drop down menu is selected for "By public transit" then press the Get Directions button. The map will provide instructions on which buses to take from your point of origin. information about you may be used and disclosed and how you can get access to this information. Please review it carefully. See also Free_or.lo.w-cost health. insurance For Washington State residents, find out if you qualify for free or low cost health insurance through the Washington State Basic Health Plan or Medicaid. Breast and cervical health Learn how to get a free breast and cervical cancer screening for low- income women in Washington State. Breastfeeding resources_ in King County Detailed fact sheets on breastfeeding methods, a listing of lactation clinics and breast pump rental stations in King County. Tobacco_ prevention Learn about Public Health's efforts to promote King County businesses to be smoke-free. Travel clinic A Public Health travel clinic nurse provides information and emphasizes the best ways to prevent travel -related illnesses as well as provides the recommended vaccinations for your travel itinerary. http://www.kingeounty.gov/healthservices/health/locations/renton.aspx 12/16/2010 Renton Public Health Center Nutritscn 4 Family Planning and STD clinic Partnerships. ccaiilicns and Personal health services, 206-296- 06-296- Phone 206-296-4600 470 0 4700 Personal health services STD screening, pregnancy tests, birth control Tobacco prevention J Burial permits About us Q Child_ren..with .Spec.al....Health . Care. Needs Jobs (CSHCN) Click here to email us Assist in planning and obtaining medical care External links and other resources for the child with a Site man disability or a condition that may prevent normal growth and development. How to find us 4 Family Planning and STD clinic Fa.m..i.l.y.pl.a..rfning.se.rvic.es and education and Phone 206-296-4600 reproductive health care includes H,IV and TTY belay 711 STD screening, pregnancy tests, birth control and referrals. Toll-free 800-325-6165 Q HIV screening Click here to email us Basic evaluation of risk factors, client education on risk reduction and blood testing to check for HIV (virus that causes AIDS). Instructions to submit a a Home visits by a Public Health _Nurse Public Records Request Public Health Nurse visits are available to pregnant women, mothers with new babies and young children and families with health or parenting concerns. Services include health assessment, education and counseling and referral. Interpreters are available. Medical social workers are available on a limited basis. Q Interpreter services Interpreter services are available to limited or non-English speaking clients by appointment for public health services. Q Nutrition services Q Pregnancy services 0 Social worker Counseling, education, referral and support for families by a Public Health Nurse. 0 Voter registration 0 Women -Infants and Children nutrition program [W.I.C1 WIC is a supplemental food program for women who are pregnant or breast feeding, infants and children. Updated: Dec 7, 2010 Page 2 of') 2011. Public Health Budget I Public Health Centers and other office locators Multiple largu,age materials I Board of Health. Birth and..death records I Child and youth health I Chronic diseases Codes regulations.,and ether tunsdictions J Communicable diseases and immunization Daa,.p.ublicatrons and reAortsI Digital _Lit.rary I environmental health services Emergency preparedness Emergency Medical Services EMS}. loiury and.vioLence.prevention I Medical examiner I Nutrition Partnerships. coalitions.an.d snit€atives I Personal healthservices i Tobacco prevention I About us I Jobs I External links Site map All information is general in nature and is not intended to be used as a substitute for appropriate professional advice. For http://www.kingcounty.govthealthservices/health/locations/renton.aspx 1216/2010 Renton Public Health Center Page 3 of 3 more information, please call 206-296-4600 (voice) or TTY Relay: 711 or toll-free, 800-325-6165. Mailing address: 401 5th Ave., Suite 1300, Seattle, WA 98104 or click here to. email us. Because of confidentiality concerns, questions regarding client health issues cannot be responded to by e-mail. Please read, the Notice of Privacy Practices. For more information, contact the Public Health Privacy Office at 206-205-5975. Home I Privacy I Accessibility l Terms of use l Search Links to external sites do not conslitule endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other Icing County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site © 2010 King County http://www.kingeounty.govihealthser-vices/health/locations/renton.aspx 12/16/2010 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 20 U.S. EPA MAP OF RADON ZONES EPA Map of Radon Zones I Radon I US EPA Page 1 of 1 Additional Resources Exhibit 20 Sections 307 and 3079 Writhe Indoor Radon Abatement Act of 1986 f IRAAI directed EPA to list and Radon Radon Hotline EPA Map of Radon Zones The purpose of this map is to assist National, State, and local organizations to target their er. a•ra.r. r..,, resources and to implement radon -resistant building codes. This map Is not intended to be used 1-800-505RADpN (1-500-767-7236) 10 delermine if a home in a given zone should be tested for radon. Homes with elevated levels of radon have been found in all three zones. All homes should be tested regardless of geographic Fax: {785) 532-6952 1 E-mail location. Important points to note: Radon(Mksu.edu I www.sosMon.org Evil Oise!—v, Read more about all the servioes Kansas • All homes should test for radon, regardless of geographic location or rune , designation. How do 1 test my home? Read "A Citlzen's_Guide To Radon: • There are many thousands of individual homes with elevated radon levels in Zone 2 and Click on the image for a larger 3. Elevated levels can be found in Zone 2 and Zone 3 counties. version • EPA also recommends that this map be supplemented with any available local data in Test Your Horne for Radon — order to further understand and predict the radon potential of a specific area. For more It's Easy and Inexpensive information, contact your state radon coordinator. Click Here for a US map (where you "Home Buyers and Sellers Guide to can select your state) to see if your state has more detailed information available- The Um Surgeon General and EPA PDF version of the National Mao (PDF. 1 page. 4:5Ke) recommend that all homes be tested. • The map should not be used In lieu of testing during reel estate transactions. Read about radon health risks. The Map was developed using five factors to determine radon potential: 1) indoor radon Fix your home If you have a radon measurements; 2 geology, 3 aerial radii 4 soil permeability; and 5) foundation ) e gr f tv.) ty; type. level of 4 1 or more, Radon potential assessment is based on geologic provinces. Radon Index Matrix is the You can test your home yourself or hire a quantitative assessment of radon potential. Confidence Index Matrix shows the quantity and professional. Find a radon service quality of the data used to assess radon potential. Geologic Provinces were adapted to county professional near you. boundaries for the Map of Radon Zones_ If you have further questions about About the Map Radon, please call your State Radon Contact. Sections 307 and 3079 Writhe Indoor Radon Abatement Act of 1986 f IRAAI directed EPA to list and Radon Hotline identity areas of the U - with the potential for elevated indoor radon levels. EPA's Map of Radon Zones assigns each of the 3,141 counties in the U.S. to one of three zones based on radon 1-800-505RADpN (1-500-767-7236) potential. Fax: {785) 532-6952 1 E-mail Find state -specific radon information. Selecl your state Select Your State Radon(Mksu.edu I www.sosMon.org Evil Oise!—v, Read more about all the servioes Kansas Erru•r d a.a� mw. State University provides Leam mare about radon resources Read "A Citlzen's_Guide To Radon: The Guide to Protecting Yourself arid i •� Your Family from Radon buying or Selling a Home? Read the .Wr,. "Home Buyers and Sellers Guide to Click on the image for a larger version Radon" PDF version of the National Mao (PDF. 1 page. 4:5Ke) Read A Consumers Guide to Radon What do the colors mean? Red ion: How to Fix Your Home ■ Zone 1 counties have a predicted average indoor radon Highest Potential screening level greater than 4 pCifL (pieocuries per liter) (red zones) Zone 2 counties have a predicted average indoor radon Moderate Potential screening level between 2 and 4 pCifL (orange zones) Zone 3 counties have a predicted average indoor radon Low Potential screening level less than 2 1 (yellow zones) Health Risks ht8p Z,"., Radon and Real Estate State Indoor Radon Grants Hotlines & Resources Media Cam ao ions Radon in Drinlung Water Test or Fix Your Home Indoor airPLus National R@don Action Month Radon Leaders Saving Lives Webii KiCB 5ludentsantl Teachers Radon -Resistant New Consimctlon State Radon Contacts Indoor Air Quality http://www.epa.gov/radon/zonemap.htmi 11/14/2010 State Radon Contacts: Washington � Radon j US EPA Radon: State Contact Information Washington State Department of Health wwwdDh_W-a-o4Y2 Radon Pragfem Office of Environmental Health and Safety Washington State Department of Health Division of Radiation Protection Radon Outreach Program www .doh ,wa,aoylehpfrplenvironmentalhadonhim ex;T ois_la=rr��i P.O. Box 47827, Olympia, WA 98504-7825 General Number (360) 236-3300 Radon Contact: Mike Brennan mike.brennani,wa.gov (36D) 236-3253 Nallonal Radon Action Month is in January - Browse Current & Past Events National Radon Action Month Events at www.radonleader9.orglnram1eveats :ex.,r_oiscla:.'O' Map of Radon Topes for Washtington Click on the image for a larger version I What do the colors mean? The purpose of this map is to assist National, State, and local organizations to target their resources and to implement radon -resistant building codes. This map is not intended to be used to deteirmine if a home in a given zone should be tested for radon. Homes with elevated levels of radon have been found in all three zones, All homes should be tested regardless of geographic location. L.ear7 -or-- Directory of Builders Usbna Radon -Resistant New Construction EPA otters the Directory of auilders as a one-stop service 10 home buyers who are looking for builders that use radon -resistant construction techniques in new homes. The Directory contains the names of builders using RRNC who have voluntarily registered with EPA, EPA encourages all builders that use the recommended radon -resistant techniques to be listed in the Directory. Read more about Radon -Resistant New Construction See a Lisboa of States and Jurisdictions with RRNC CodesI Go to a listing of State Buildina Code Associations I Find Builders offering services in Washington Page 1 of 1 hltp,llwww.epa,govlradonlstates=washinglor html#zone%20map s-a'e EPA Region 10 (The Pacific Northwest) www. en a. oo vlrea i o n 10 Mail Code (QAQ-107) 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 95101- 9797 Phone, 1-500-424-4372 Fax (206) 553-0110 6KIU2148i0,1n Regional Contacts: Radon: !Davis Zhen zhen.davis@epa.gov (206) 553-7660 Tribal Coordinator. Sally Thomas Thomas, saly@epa,gov 1206) 553-2162 Featured Links • Indoor Airpil • Ccncemed Citizens pace • Tribal Ciffice Regional Radon Training Centers I IED's Tribal Resources I EPA=s State Env rpnmenlal Agencig�ist I EPA's MvEnvironment I EPA's Indoor Air Quality Contacts Note: Please direct any questions regarding the information on this page to the IED Webmaster. Health Risks Mar o' Rn 'i. "Cres Radon and Real Estate SIRG Holmes Media Camcaions Radon and Ddnkino Water Test & Fix Your Home Indoor amrPLUS National Radon Action Month Radoni-eaders.oro inar Kids. Students & Teachers Radon -res slant New Conslructien State Radon Contacts lydoor K Last updalai3 on 'Aadnc:C ay Oct3heT 95 2D I D http://www.epa.goo/radon/states/washington.html#zone%20map 11/14/2010 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 21 U.S. EPA SOLE SOURCE AQUIFERS O no ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 22 U.S. EPA AIR QUALITY NONATTAINMENT AREAS Currently Designated Nonattainment Areas for All Criteria Pollutants I Green Book I U... Page 33 of 35 Additional Resource Exhibit 22 Excerpt from U.S. EPA website showing Washington State PM -2.5 1997 Washington, DC -MD -VA - Nonattainment Arlington Co 8 -Hr Ozone Washington, DC -MD -VA - Moderate PM -2.5 1997 Washington, DC -MD -VA - Nonattainment Fairfax 8 -Hr Ozone Washington, DC -MD -VA - Moderate PM -2.5 1997 Washington, DC -MD -VA - Nonattainment Fairfax Co 8 -Hr Ozone Washington, DC -MD -VA - Moderate PM -2.5 1997 Washington, DC -MD -VA - Nonattainment Falls Church 8 -Hr Ozone Washington, DC -MD -VA - Moderate PM -2.5 1997 Washington, DC -MD -VA - Nonattainment Loudoun Co 8 -Hr Ozone Washington, DG -MD -VA - Moderate PM -2.5 1997 Washington, DC -MD -VA - Nonattainment Manassas 8 -Hr Ozone Washington, DC -MD -VA - Moderate PM -2.5 1997 Washington, DC -MD -VA - Nonattainment Manassas Park 8 -Hr Ozone Washington, DC -MD -VA - Moderate PM -2.5 1997 Washington, DC -MD -VA - Nonattainment Prince William Co 8 -Hr Ozone Washington, DC -MD -VA - Moderate PM -2.5 1997 Washington, DC -MD -VA - Nonattainment State, County, Pollutant, * Part County NAA, NAA Area Name - Classification Standard WASHINGTON Pierce Co PM -2.5 2006 * Tacoma, WA - Nonattainment State, County, Pollutant, * Part County NAA, NAA Area Name - Classification Standard WEST VIRGINIA Berkeley Co http://epa.goy/oar/oagps/greenbk/anel.htmi 12/16/2010 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 23 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER Valley Medical Center I Locations Additional Resources Exhibit 23 Tvferl it -tel C&ante . About Us o �Ves�e U1, Nervi s oalth Library �n a uoc or . Locations . Patients Visitors . Seminars Events . Health Info . Emergency Locations Home Locations Valley Medical Center 400 South 43rd Street Renton, WA 98055-5010 425-228-3450 Or view our phone directory For driving directions [Click Here]. Campus -Map &...Directions Urgent Care Clinics If you are experiencing a critical or life-threatening medical emergency, call 911. • Covington Urgent Care • Newcastle Urgent Care • North Benson.-UrgentCare • Renton Landing Urgent Care Primary Care Clinics • Cascade Primary Care • Covington Primary Care • Fairwood Primary Care http:l/www.valleymed.org/Locations.htm Page 1 of 2 12/16/2010 Valley Medical Center I Locations • Highlands (Renion)_Yrim_ay._Care • Kent Primary Care. . Lake Sawyer Primary Care • Newcastle Primary Care • Valley Family Medicine Specialty & Inpatient Services • Cancer Services • Diabetes Education • Eye Center • Joint Center • Midwives at VMC • Nephrology Health_ Services • Occupational_ Health Services - Renton • Psychiatry and Counseling Center • Rheumatology • Sleep Center • Sports Medicine • Valley Ear, Nose & Throat.Specialists • Valley General Surgery Services • Valley Neuroscience Institute • Valley Radiologists • Valley Surgical Specialists • Vascular and Endovascular Surgery • Wound Care Clinic • I:ocations • ---Find a primer} care ph\'siciail • Ur2cnt Carc Clinics • Prin�ai� Care Clinics • Specialty & Inpatient Services Page 2 of 2 CaringBridge.org Follow us on Twitter See us on Facebook Watch us on YouTube Visit us on Linkedin Home j Contact Us I Newsroom ] Volunteer I Careers Site Map I Legal Notice 102010 Valley Medical Center. All rights reserved. 400 South 43rd Street, Renton, Washington (WA) 98055 tel. 425.228.3450. web design fgi. http://www.valleymed.org/Locations.htm 12/16/2010 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 24 ZONE 2 OF CITY OF RENTON AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA (RMC 4-3-050Q1) AQUIFER PROTECTION ZONES ♦�.• \ J PlaR WWorks -,f January 22. zoos Rendon MuniclpW Cada Zonal L-= Zone 1 MWtW Zana 2 m umlm