Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutECF_FEIS_Vol2_RentonSunsetArea-PA.pdfSUNSET AREA COMMUNITY PLANNED ACTION FINAL NEPA/SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT • VOLUME 2 • APRIL 2011 Issued by: City of Renton NEPA Responsible Entity and SEPA Lead Agency Prepared in partnership with: Renton Housing AuthorityRenton Housing Authority   Appendix A Preferred Alternative Evaluation Planned Action Goals and Objectives and LEED ND Qualitative Review   Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement A-1-1 April 2011 ICF 593.10 Appendix A-1 Preferred Alternative Evaluation: Goals & Objectives Sunset Area Community Planned Action Overview The environmental impact statement (EIS) addresses the Sunset Area Community Planned Action, which includes redevelopment of RHA’s Sunset Terrace public housing community and associated neighborhood growth and revitalization (proposal). The proposal goals and objectives below guided the preparation of the EIS alternatives as described in Final EIS Chapter 2. The consistency of the Preferred Alternative with these goals and objectives is evaluated below. Planned Action Study Area Goals and Objectives Transformation of private and public properties in the Planned Action Study Area (see Chapter 2, Figures 2-1 and 2-4) is expected to meet the Sunset Area Community vision, as expressed in the Highlands Phase II Task Force Recommendations1 and the Community Investment Strategy. 2  The Highlands is a destination for the rest of the city and beyond.  The neighbors and businesses here are engaged and involved in the community.  Neighborhood places are interconnected and walkable.  The neighborhood feels safe and secure.  Neighborhood growth and development is managed in a way that preserves quality of life.  The neighborhood is an attractive place to live and conduct business.  The neighborhood is affordable to many incomes.  The neighborhood celebrates cultural and ethnic diversity. Evaluation: The elements of the Preferred Alternative implement the Community Investment Strategy developed by neighbors and businesses. The Preferred Alternative would enhance the Sunset Area Planned Action Study Area as a destination by creating a multi-modal NE Sunset Boulevard with landscaping, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle amenities; enhancing neighborhood streets to serve as Green Connections for improved pedestrian environments as well as water quality; and redeveloping Sunset Terrace as a mixed use, mixed income development with attractive features for the broader Highlands community, including a relocated and larger library at Harrington Avenue NE and NE Sunset Boulevard, a “central park,” and public plaza. 1 City of Renton. 2008. Report and Recommendations: Highlands Phase II Task Force. December. Adopted by Renton City Council in 2009. Available: <http://www.rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=10946>. Accessed: September 20, 2010. 2 City of Renton. 2009. Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy. November 18, 2009. Prepared by Mithun, Inc. on behalf of the City of Renton Community and Economic Development Department. City of Renton Appendix A-1 Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement A-1-2 April 2011 ICF 593.10 Public investments described above are intended to spur private reinvestment in the neighborhood that is integrated and managed according to City standards for design intending to create an attractive place to live and conduct business. The Preferred Alternative includes a range of housing styles – single family, townhomes, and flats – that would meet the needs of a range of households. Some housing would be public, affordable, and/or market rate. Sunset Terrace redevelopment as well as the family village will be models and catalysts for private investment in housing at all income levels and serving a diverse population. For each of the major components of the proposal, the following specific goals and objectives were developed to be consistent with this vision. 1. Through designation of a Planned Action and infrastructure investments, support and stimulate public and private development. Evaluation: The Preferred Alternative includes adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance and infrastructure investments including NE Sunset Boulevard complete street improvements, green infrastructure developed according to a drainage master plan, parks and recreation space, and water and sewer system upgrades. The level of investment is the highest evaluated in the EIS Alternatives and the corresponding level of growth is very similar to the upper bookend of growth evaluated (within 7% of the maximum). 2. Ensure that redevelopment is planned to conform to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Evaluation: The redevelopment will conform to the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan land use map and zoning. Consistency amendments in terms of capital facilities improvements would be adopted at the time of the Planned Action Ordinance. 3. Through the Planned Action and early environmental review, accelerate the transformation of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with mixed-income housing and mixed uses together with places for community gathering. This will also be accomplished in part by using this EIS to achieve a NEPA Record of Decision, which will enable RHA to submit a HUD Demolition and Disposition application in 2011. Evaluation: The Preferred Alternative includes adoption of a SEPA Planned Action Ordinance and site- specific NEPA review of the Sunset Terrace public housing community’s redevelopment into a mixed income, mixed use place with community amenities, with a NEPA Record of Decision anticipated by mid 2011. 4. Ensure that the Planned Action covers environmental review of Sunset Area roadway, drainage, parks and recreation, and other infrastructure improvements, and analyze impacts of anticipated private development in addition to Sunset Terrace. Evaluation: The Planned Action EIS evaluates improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard, stormwater improvements, parks and recreation facilities and needs, water and sewer, and a range of public services. 5. Build on previous City, RHA, and Renton School District efforts and current projects. Leverage relationships and partner with existing community outreach activities and resources. Recognize community desires documented in: City of Renton Appendix A-1 Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement A-1-3 April 2011 ICF 593.10  Report and Recommendation of the Highlands Area Citizen’s Zoning Task Force (City of Renton 2006),  Report and Recommendation of the Highlands Phase II Task Force (City of Renton 2008a),  Highlands Action Plan (City of Renton 2009c),  Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy (City of Renton 2009b),  Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan (City of Renton 2009d),  Renton Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan (estimated completion date September 2011),  Utility system plans, and  Library replacement (in process). Evaluation: Task Force and other City plans formed the basis for the proposals studied in the EIS and included in the Preferred Alternative, such as NE Sunset Boulevard multimodal improvements, green infrastructure improvements, water and sewer upgrades, library relocation, and other features. The City, RHA, and the Renton School District have coordinated on the planning for the study area, including the family village. The results of the City’s parks, recreation, open space, and natural resources planning, including public outreach and inventory information has been shared with other City departments and the EIS consultant team; City park level of service standards were considered in the enlarged central park included in the Sunset Terrace redevelopment concepts. 6. Create a Great Street3 on NE Sunset Boulevard, as described in the CIS. Implement the City Complete Streets policy for the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor and the Sunset Area Green Connections.4 Evaluation: The Preferred Alternative would comply with the City Complete Streets standards for NE Sunset Boulevard. In one location, the City would consider an exception, allowed with City decision- maker approval, where there is an existing wall between Edmonds Avenue NE and Harrington Avenue NE. At this constrained location, the Preferred Alternative would keep the existing curb and 5-foot-wide sidewalk (no planter) and right-of-way would be acquired from the north side (Sunset Terrace) up to 14 feet. East of 10th Street NE, there appears to be sufficient right-of-way width along NE Sunset Boulevard to accommodate the Complete Street cross section. Extend conceptual design of improvements between the Interstate 405 limited access right-of-way and Monroe Avenue NE, and include them in the Planned Action effort. 7. Encourage low-impact stormwater management methods and areawide solutions as part of a master drainage plan to support development. Evaluation: The Preferred Alternative includes green infrastructure and the development of a master drainage plan. Several residential streets (designated as Green Connections) in the neighborhood 3 A “Great Street” has numerous characteristics, including: accommodating multiple motorized and nonmotorized modes, exhibiting quality urban design and architecture, offering a variety of interesting activities and uses, promoting environmental sustainability, and incorporating design elements that facilitate maintenance. The CIS suggests that the NE Sunset Boulevard “[i]mprovements would create a gateway and sense of place for the area, as well as enhanced pedestrian safety through traffic calming using improved crossings and landscaped medians.” 4 The term “green connections” refers to public stormwater facility development serving desired new private development as well as public facilities and rights-of-way per the CIS. City of Renton Appendix A-1 Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement A-1-4 April 2011 ICF 593.10 would be transformed to improve pedestrian mobility, mitigate stormwater (both for water quality and flow reduction), and create an inviting corridor to enhance the neighborhood. Harrington Avenue NE, including portions of NE 16th and NE 9th streets, has been identified as a high priority green connection project that would provide enhanced pedestrian connectivity between Hillcrest Terrace, McKnight Middle School, Sunset Terrace (including the relocated King County Library), Highlands Elementary, and Highlands Community Center. This corridor would be enhanced by narrowing through-traffic lanes to calm traffic, create wide planter areas to accommodate large trees and rain gardens to mitigate stormwater runoff, and create wider sidewalks. This project would be implemented as a public infrastructure retrofit project pending available funds. The remaining Green Connections projects would likely be implemented as revised roadway standards to require incremental redevelopment of the frontage as redevelopment occurs (constructed either by future developers or the City, depending on availability of funds). In addition to the Green Connections projects, the City will implement regional detention/retention improvements to provide advance mitigation for future increases in impervious area that could result from redevelopment. Locations of the regional facilities could include the western margin of the newly created park at Sunset Terrace and/or the northern corner of Highlands Park (beyond the outfield of the existing baseball/softball field). The use of flow control BMPs and other low impact development standards would be implemented where feasible and allowed by the City in accordance with City surface water design standards and other standards. The regional detention/retention improvements and Green Connections funding is dependent upon the City obtaining grants from various sources and the availability of City funds. There also is the option that the Green Connections and the regional detention/retention improvements could be funded as part of the redevelopment projects. 8. Engage the community in a transparent process using available outreach opportunities and tools successfully used in prior planning efforts. Evaluation: The Preferred Alternative was developed following public review of the Draft EIS alternatives at public meetings. Additional public comment opportunities occurred within a 45-day Draft EIS comment period extending from December 17, 2010, to January 31, 2011. Following direct mail and posting of notices, RHA held a meeting for Sunset Terrace residents on January 4, 2011, at which more than 25 participants attended. After mailing postcards in English and Spanish, posting notices, and publishing notice in the City’s local newspaper, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission at Renton City Hall on January 5, 2011, at which eight persons spoke. During the 45-day comment period 12 pieces of correspondence were received. Please see Chapter 5 of this Final EIS for more information about the comments and responses. 9. Optimize funding strategies by leveraging partnerships, innovation and sustainable development for a healthy community. Recognize the importance and timing of integrating housing, transportation, infrastructure, expanded economic opportunity, parks and recreation, and the environment. Evaluation: The Preferred Alternative depends on a partnership between the City, RHA, the Renton School District and others, and these agencies have been coordinating through this process to ensure that investments are leveraged. The Preferred Alternative integrates housing, transportation, parks and recreation, infrastructure, and environmental benefits and mitigation to create opportunities for economic and housing growth in the community. City of Renton Appendix A-1 Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement A-1-5 April 2011 ICF 593.10 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment As well as being a key part of the overall Planned Action Study Area revitalization strategy, the Sunset Terrace redevelopment is intended to meet the following goals and objectives.  Replace at a 1:1 ratio the existing 100 Sunset Terrace public housing units: 20 one-bedroom, 36 two-bedroom, 36 three-bedroom, and eight four–bedroom units. Some will be replaced on site and some off site within the Planned Action Study Area.  Provide new affordable and market-rate housing to accommodate a mixed-income community that includes the Sunset Terrace property and nearby RHA- or City-owned sites.  Maximize the visibility and location of the redevelopment as the heart of Sunset Area Community.  Act as a catalyst for improvements and investments in the Sunset Area Community.  Integrate the Sunset Terrace site and residents with the surrounding neighborhood.  Provide amenities to be shared by the Sunset Area Community neighborhood and other Renton residents, employees, and visitors, including a “third place” for all to gather, and park and open space opportunities such as active recreation and community garden space.  Improve the pedestrian realm and connection across NE Sunset Boulevard.  Provide a mix of uses, including residential, open space, and potential for community, civic, retail, or commercial. Evaluation: The Preferred Alternative would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community into a mixed-income, mixed-use development according to a master plan, which features a “central” park of approximately 2.65 acres and a loop road. The existing 100 public housing units would be replaced at a 1-to-1 ratio. Replacement of the public housing units would occur on the current public housing site and elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area. In particular, some potential sites for replacement housing include Sunset Court Park (as the park space would be relocated at Sunset Terrace), RHA-owned property along Kirkland Avenue NE, and the existing library site once it is relocated though another possible use for the library site would be for agency use (e.g. offices, maintenance). The Preferred Alternative would provide approximately 78% public and affordable, and 22% market- rate dwelling units. Housing styles would include flats in mixed-use and residential-only buildings and townhomes. It is expected that, with the Sunset Terrace property and associated properties owned or purchased by RHA, up to 266 additional new units could be created, would be public, affordable, and/or market rate. The total 376 dwellings would result in a density of approximately 33 units per acre. The Preferred Alternative would create a more prominent mixed use character. The central park and loop road would create a central feature for the development and the community, providing a sense of openness to the Sunset Terrace site. In addition, buildings on the site would be arranged to place 2- story townhomes adjacent to the park and taller multifamily residential buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard. At NE Sunset Boulevard visible community features include a relocated library and mixed use commercial/community/residential buildings. City of Renton Appendix A-1 Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement A-1-6 April 2011 ICF 593.10 The Sunset Terrace redevelopment would act as a catalyst for the broader neighborhood as it would be located in a visually prominent area, be an example of a mixed use, mixed income development, and create a density and urban form that represents the vision of the Center Village designation. The Preferred Alternative Sunset Terrace redevelopment would be integrated into the community – it would add public features including a park and library for all broader Highlands residents, improve pedestrian connectivity with a loop public street system and extension of Green Connections, and buildings would face NE Sunset Boulevard and invite residents to businesses and community facilities. Public amenities would be integrated with the residential development and could include the following: a central park including a vacated Harrington Avenue NE (at Sunset Lane NE), an elder day health center, a new public library along a Sunset Lane NE that would occasionally serve as an active plaza, commercial retail or service space, and green infrastructure. The park and library/plaza as well as the central park could act as a “third place.” The pedestrian realm would be enhanced by a network of complete streets, particularly NE Sunset Boulevard as well as the Green Connections, improved landscaping and street furniture, and more active civic and commercial uses, e.g. library and retail uses. LEED 2009 for Neighborhood DevelopmentProject Name:Project ScorecardDate:Yes ? No000Smart Location and Linkage 27 Points PossibleGreen Infrastructure and Buildings, ContinuedYes ? NoYPrereq 1Smart LocationRequired Credit 1Certified Green Buildings5YPrereq 2Imperiled Species and Ecological CommunitiesRequired Credit 2Building Energy Efficiency2YPrereq 3Wetland and Water Body ConservationRequired Credit 3Building Water Efficiency1YPrereq 4Agricultural Land ConservationRequired Credit 4Water-Efficient Landscaping1YPrereq 5Floodplain AvoidanceRequired Credit 5Existing Building Use1Credit 1Preferred Locations10 Credit 6Historic Resource Preservation and Adaptive Reuse1Credit 2Brownfield Redevelopment2 Credit 7Minimized Site Disturbance in Design and Construction1Credit 3Locations with Reduced Automobile Dependence7 Credit 8Stormwater Management4Credit 4Bicycle Network and Storage 1 Credit 9Heat Island Reduction1Credit 5Housing and Jobs Proximity3 Credit 10Solar Orientation1Credit 6Steep Slope Protection1 Credit 11On-Site Renewable Energy Sources3Credit 7Site Design for Habitat or Wetland and Water Body Conservation1 Credit 12District Heating and Cooling2Credit 8Restoration of Habitat or Wetlands and Water Bodies 1 Credit 13Infrastructure Energy Efficiency1Credit 91 Credit 14Wastewater Management2Yes ? NoCredit 15Recycled Content in Infrastructure1000Neighborhood Pattern and Design 44 Points PossibleCredit 16Solid Waste Management Infrastructure1Credit 17Light Pollution Reduction1YP 1Wlkbl St t RidLong-Term Conservation Management of Habitat or Wetlands and Water BodiesYPrereq 1Walkable Streets RequiredYPrereq 2Compact Development Required000Innovation and Design Process6 PointsYPrereq 3Connected and Open CommunityRequiredCredit 1Walkable Streets 12 Credit 1.1Innovation and Exemplary Performance: Provide Specific Title 1Credit 2Compact Development 6 Credit 1.2Innovation and Exemplary Performance: Provide Specific Title 1Credit 3Mixed-Use Neighborhood Centers4 Credit 1.3Innovation and Exemplary Performance: Provide Specific Title 1Credit 4Mixed-Income Diverse Communities7 Credit 1.4Innovation and Exemplary Performance: Provide Specific Title 1Credit 5Reduced Parking Footprint 1 Credit 1.5Innovation and Exemplary Performance: Provide Specific Title 1Credit 6Street Network2 Credit 2LEED® Accredited Professional1Credit 7Transit Facilities 1Yes ? NoCredit 8Transportation Demand Management2000Regional Priority Credit4 PointsCredit 9Access to Civic and Public Spaces 1Credit 10Access to Recreation Facilities1 Credit 1.1Regional Priority Credit: Region Defined 1Credit 11Visitability and Universal Design1 Credit 1.2Regional Priority Credit: Region Defined 1Credit 12Community Outreach and Involvement 2 Credit 1.3Regional Priority Credit: Region Defined 1Credit 13Local Food Production1 Credit 1.4Regional Priority Credit: Region Defined 1Credit 14Tree-Lined and Shaded Streets2Credit 15Neighborhood Schools1Yes ? NoYes ? No000Green Infrastructure and Buildings 29 Points Possible000Project Totals (Certification estimates)110 PointsCertified: 40-49 points, Silver: 50-59 points, Gold: 60-79 points, Platinum: 80+ pointsYPrereq 1Certified Green BuildingRequiredYPrereq 2Minimum Building Energy EfficiencyRequiredYPrereq 3Minimum Building Water EfficiencyRequiredYPrereq 4Construction Activity Pollution PreventionRequired   Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement A-3-1 April 2011 ICF 593.1 Appendix A-3 Preferred Alternative Evaluation: LEED for Neighborhood Development Design Elements Sunset Area Community Planned Action Introduction The purpose of this analysis is to provide a qualitative review of the proposed Sunset Area Community Planned Action including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in terms of the proposals’ alignment with general principles of the Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) rating system for Neighborhood Development. The official 2009 LEED ND project scorecard published by the U.S. Green Building Council is used as a guide to address green design issues in relation to the proposed redevelopment. For each criteria group on the scorecard, a brief discussion of how the proposed redevelopment is consistent with the principles of LEED ND is provided. Smart Location and Linkage The intent of the Smart Location and Linkage criteria of the LEED ND rating system is to encourage development to occur within and near existing communities and established public transit infrastructure, as well as reduce vehicle trips. Development in smart locations also encourages a greater degree of walking of bicycling, which has personal health benefits. The Sunset Terrace site is located along a major transportation and transit corridor within the City of Renton. Redevelopment of the site under the Final EIS Preferred Alternative would create a mixed-use, mixed-income development already served by the full range of public services on a previously developed infill site on a major transit corridor, fully meeting the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC’s) definition of a “smart location.” Multimodal improvements to Sunset Boulevard, including a multi-use trail, would also strengthen pedestrian and bicycle linkages to surrounding development, increasing resident access to neighborhood services and amenities. Neighborhood Pattern and Design The intent of the Neighborhood Pattern and Design criteria of the LEED ND rating system is to promote safe, diverse, walkable, compact neighborhoods with high-quality design with a mix of land uses. Redevelopment of Sunset Terrace as described in the Final EIS Preferred Alternative would increase the walkability of the area through improvements both to internal circulation paths and surrounding sidewalks and streetscapes. Redevelopment would transform the site to host a mix of retail, community service, recreational, and residential uses, which is encouraged by the LEED standards. Residential development would consist of mixed-income housing at a variety of densities, including both townhomes and flats. The Preferred Alternative would reduce parking requirements in the planned action study area and provide additional transit facilities, such as City of Renton Appendix A-3 Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement A-3-2 April 2011 ICF 593.1 transit-priority lanes and bus shelters. Increased access to civic and public space would also be provided under the Preferred Alternative, which includes a central park on the Sunset Terrace site; a relocated library and a new community center would be located adjacent to the park. Green Infrastructure and Buildings The intent of the Green Infrastructure and Buildings criteria is to encourage development that implements green building practices or introduces green infrastructure. This includes using certified green building techniques, increasing building water and energy efficiency, controlling pollution from construction activities, implementing adaptive reuse of historic buildings, and using green methods of stormwater management. The Preferred Alternative would implement a number of these principles, both through project design and through mitigation measures included in this EIS. These would include:  Construction Emission Control: The Final EIS recommends that the City require all construction contractors to implement air quality control plans for construction activities in the study area, including measures for reducing engine emissions and fugitive dust. (See Draft EIS Section 4.2 and Final EIS Appendix E for additional detail.)  Green Connections for Stormwater Management: The Preferred Alternative would include public investment in Green Connections throughout the Planned Action Study Area. The exact form of these Green Connections would be determined in a drainage master plan for the study area.  Energy Efficiency: The Final EIS recommends that the City encourage or require implementation of energy and greenhouse gas reduction measures in the study area such as compliance with the Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes program and the Seattle Energy Code for non-residential buildings. (See Draft EIS Section 4.5 and Final EIS Chapter 1 and Appendix E for additional detail.) Appendix B Land Capacity Analysis     Sunset Area Community Planned Action  Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement B‐1 ƉƌŝůϮϬϭϭ ICF 593.10   Appendix B  Land Capacity Analysis    Data and Assumptions  The purpose of the land capacity analysis is to document the calculation of growth numbers for  alternatives.  The methodology identifies possible development and redevelopment opportunities,  but ultimately the level of growth will be based on individual property owner decisions and market  forces within the framework of City zoning and other development regulations.  The methods rely on 2007 Buildable Lands spreadsheets provided by Michael Hubner of Suburban  Cities Association and address vacant and redevelopable lands within the Sunset Area Community  Planned Action Study Area.    King County parcel data as of 2010 was used to prepare draft maps and identify parcels within the  various zones that are categorized as vacant, redevelopable, and developed.  In addition, King  County data was used to eliminate other parcels from consideration in the buildable lands analysis,  such as religious institutions, government or institutional facilities similar to the 2007 Buildable  Lands analysis.  However, Renton Housing Authority (RHA) parcels were not excluded.  King County IMap and aerial photos were reviewed to verify status on parcels and to categorize  parcels that did not have enough information in King County’s data to assess a category.  King County parcel data (2010) was also used to provide existing development figures such as  dwelling units and commercial square footage, which were subtracted from redevelopable parcels.    Summary of Land Capacity Findings  Table 1 below provides a land capacity analysis broken into subareas.   See Final EIS Figure 2‐1 for a  map of the subareas and Final EIS Figure 2‐3 for a zoning map.  The attached spreadsheet provides a  breakdown of capacity by zoning districts.  City of Renton Appendix B   Sunset Area Community Planned Action  Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement B‐2 Ɖƌŝů ϮϬϭ1 ICF 593.10   Table 1. Summary of Land Capacity – Net Additional Growth above Existing  Subarea Dwelling  Units/Jobs  Alternative  1  Alternative  21  Alternative  3  Preferred  Alternative  Potential Sunset  Terrace  Redevelopment   Dwelling units  168–175 2  310  479 266  Jobs 493 164 182 79–1178 Sunset Mixed Use   Dwelling units  1,109  1,052  1,509 1,481  Jobs 410–652 1,728 2,875 2,802  Central, North and  South   Dwelling units  206  296  518  592  Jobs 152–213 273 273 273  Total Study Area  Dwelling units 4  1,483–1,490  1,658  2,506 2,339  Population5  3,430‐3,442  3,830  5,789 5,403  Employment SF 251,700 844,351 1,310,113 1,247,444– 1,259,9448  Jobs6 611–9147 2,165 3,330 3,154– 3,1928  1  The EIS technical analysis for transportation, water, and sewer models studied two more net units in  the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under Alternatives 1 and 3, and a slightly  different mix of dwellings and jobs in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under  Alternative 2 (12 more dwellings and 38 fewer jobs). These differences are negligible and represent a  less than 2% difference across the Planned Action Study Area.  2  The lower range represents proposed concepts on RHA’s two vacant sites based on funding  applications. The upper range represents the results of a land capacity analysis.  3  The estimate is based on a 90%/10% housing/employment split between residential and service uses;  the housing/employment share based on example proposed developments prepared for RHA’s two  vacant sites in the Sunset Terrace subarea.  4  Includes 217 dwellings and approximately 8 jobs associated with Harrington Square. The first building  was constructed in Summer 2010, and the other is under construction to be completed in  spring/summer 2011.  5 Applies an average household size of 2.31, an average of two census tracts 252 and 254.   6  Includes retail, service, and education jobs.  7  The lower figure shown is based on a commercial employment rate of 400 square feet per employee for  retail and service jobs. If applying a commercial employment rate of 250 square feet per employee, the  employment would equal the upper range. This latter figure is more similar to Renton Transportation  Zone assumptions.   8  The lower figure assumes less commercial/service space, whereas the higher includes more  commercial/service space. The Final EIS studies the lower number of jobs (38 fewer) in the technical  analysis for transportation, water, and sewer models though this is considered a negligible difference  from the upper range (less than 2%) and is captured in the range of the EIS analysis for all alternatives.  Alternative 1 reflects existing assumptions in the 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report as  applied to the adopted zoning and Alternative 3 modifies some of the residential‐commercial mix  assumptions of the 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report and adds properties that could be  redeveloped.  These present the bookends.  Alternative 2 represents moderate growth within the  bookends, by refining Alternative 3 assumptions. The relationship of the land capacity assumptions  to the bookends is addressed later in this memo.   City of Renton Appendix B   Sunset Area Community Planned Action  Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement B‐3 ƉƌŝůϮϬϭϭ ICF 593.10   Alternative 1  Generally speaking, the existing buildable lands methodology developed by King County and the City  of Renton was applied to 2010 King County parcel data to produce Alternative 1 figures for dwelling  units and jobs.  The 2007 Buildable Lands included the following assumptions for relevant zones  listed in Table 2:  Table 2. Alternative 1 Land Capacity Assumptions  Zone  Assumed  Future  Residential  Densities  Assumed  Future FAR  (Non‐ Residential)  Mixed‐Use  Assumed  Future %  Residential‐ %  Commercial  ROW %  Public  Purpose %  Market  Factor (%)  1  R‐8  6.64  N/A  N/A  14.5%  11.5%  V = 10%,  R=15%  R‐10  8.44  N/A  N/A  14.5%  11.5%  V = 10%  R=15%  R‐14  12.34  N/A  N/A  5%  5%  V = 10%  R=15%  RM‐F  19.00  N/A  N/A  2%  1%  V = 10%  R=15%  CN  N/A  0.15  N/A  0%  0%  V = 10%  R=15%  CV  78.34  1.86  80%‐20%  0%  0%  V = 10%  R=15%  1 V= Vacant, properties with an improvement value of less than $5000  R=Redevelopable  Redevelopable – Single Family: Parcels with adequate acreage to accommodate future development  Redevelopable – Multifamily and Commercial: Properties with an improvement to land value of less than 0.5  The land capacity analysis applied the assumptions to eligible properties as follows:   Vacant, redevelopable, and developed property classifications were generally consistent with  the 2007 Buildable Lands assumptions.   Single‐family residential methods were used for R‐8 and R‐10 zones   An assessment of improvement to land value of less than 0.5 was used for commercial and  multifamily zones.    Parks, community centers, library, fire station, and churches were excluded from  calculations.   The small parcels that make up the Walgreens site on Sunset Boulevard appeared as  “vacant.”  These were corrected to “developed” category.   A handful of small access or associated parking parcels were also reclassified from “vacant”  to “developed” based upon a review of an aerial and information contained in King County  data.  City of Renton Appendix B   Sunset Area Community Planned Action  Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement B‐4 ƉƌŝůϮϬϭ1 ICF 593.10    The Harrington Square project that is under construction is shown as a pipeline project with  217 dwelling units and 8 jobs (3,349 s.f. of commercial space divided by 400 s.f./employee  found in buildable lands).  Results were tabulated by subareas.  See Table 1 for a breakdown by subarea and the attachment for  a summary by zoning district.  Alternative 3  For Alternative 3, the 2007 Buildable Lands methodology was adjusted to assume a greater level of  redevelopment along the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor on the Center Village (CV) zoned parcels  that were either categorized as redevelopable under Alternative 1 above, or newly categorized as  redevelopable using two methods: 1) a review of King County parcel data on age of structures (1990  or earlier) and review of aerial data in relation to existing assumed redevelopable parcels; and 2) a  draft methodology developed by the Suburban Cities Association that considers parcels with 25% of  the assumed future floor area ratio and a structure age older than 1995.    For purposes of Alternative 3, these parcels were called “CV2” and they were assumed to redevelop  with a 50% commercial‐50% residential mix in consideration of their orientation to Sunset  Boulevard.  A higher density redevelopment assumption was also applied in the R‐14 zoned “family village” area  identified in the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy (CIS), and for the current Highlands  public library site recognizing possible density bonuses.  For these parcels alone, density was  assumed at 18 du/acre on the library site and 24 du/acre on the “family village” site. Also, the  market factor was removed to account for a complete transformation of these sites.   Additional detailed assumptions are described below.  Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea  For the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, the Bumgardner Architecture Concept  Master Plan (Final EIS Figure 2‐10) was used to develop the total.     The number of dwelling units was included from the new development summary shown on  Bumgardner’s Sunset Terrace Redevelopment:  Concept Master Plan.   Commercial building square footages were taken from the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment:   Concept Master Plan and translated to jobs using the average of the City of Renton’s Buildable  Lands employees/square foot range of 250‐400.  The figure used for this calculation was  approximately 325 employees/square foot.   Employment estimates using this process varies between 97 employees and 182 depending  upon whether or not the 27,500 s.f. of community space is considered in the employment mix.  North Subarea  The “family village” redevelopment concept would, if implemented, redevelop RHA property and  contiguous School District and City park properties located in the North Subarea (total of  approximately 15 acres).  Assumptions for this redevelopment included:  City of Renton Appendix B   Sunset Area Community Planned Action  Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement B‐5 ƉƌŝůϮϬϭϭ ICF 593.10    Apply 24du/acre in R‐14 zone (considered a practical maximum for townhouse densities;  allowed with density bonus provisions for affordable housing),   Eliminate the market factor for this redevelopment since it is assumed to occur on this single  parcel.   Deduct approximately 3 acres of land as an estimate for education facility and park space in the  redevelopment.  Central Subarea  The existing site of the Highlands Branch Public Library is expected to redevelop with housing once  the library is moved to the redeveloped Sunset Terrace site.  Assumptions for redevelopment of the  library site (approximately 1.4 acres, when excluding the associated alley extending north of the  library site) include:   Apply maximum 18 du/acre allowed in R‐14 zone (allowed with density bonus provisions for  affordable housing and community facilities),   Eliminate the market factor for this redevelopment since it is assumed to occur on this single  parcel.  Alternative 2 and the Bookends  Alternative 3 is considered to be an upper bookend for the analysis.  It provides a best‐case scenario  for employment and residential growth.  It captures a range of land use options included in the  Renton Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy such as the Sunset Terrace redevelopment and  the “family village” concept.  Alternative 1 is considered to be a lower bookend. It recognizes more  incremental infill redevelopment of vacant and selected properties that appear to have a  combination of land and improvement values that could result in redevelopment that takes  advantage of adopted zoning.  Alternative 2 is a mid‐range option that includes the following  assumptions:   a similar amount of redevelopable acreage as Alternative 3, excluding the family village concept  and increasing the amount of acres that could be acquired for public parks and recreation   a lower intensity Sunset Terrace redevelopment, and    a reduced density and floor area ratio on remaining properties (e.g. .a density in the range of the  minimum and maximum 20‐80 du/ac respectively, and a FAR of less than 1.86 – specifically an  average density of approximately 69 dwellings per acre and an FAR of approximately 1.5).  Preferred Alternative  The Preferred Alternative is similar to Alternative 3 and also falls within the bookends noted above.   Key changes to assumptions for the Preferred Alternative in comparison to Alternative 3 include:   A lower intensity Sunset Terrace redevelopment that assumes additional open space in  exchange for redevelopment of Sunset Court Park in the Central Subarea.  This results in fewer  new dwelling units and jobs than found in Alternative 3;   Redevelopment of Sunset Court Park parcel in the Central Subarea with 80 new dwelling units,  as the open space on the existing park site is transferred to the Sunset Terrace Subarea;  City of Renton Appendix B   Sunset Area Community Planned Action  Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement B‐6 ƉƌŝůϮϬϭ1 ICF 593.10    Removing a 1.1 acre vacant parcel that is shown as a Native Growth Protection Easement from  development capacity in the North Subarea, resulting in reduction of 6 dwelling units of capacity  in that area; and   Assuming about half of the previously assumed land capacity on the St. Vincent de Paul site in  the Sunset Mixed‐Use Subarea due to eligibility as a historic resource which may mean a future  site design that avoids the structure resulting in lower dwelling units and employment  assumptions within this Subarea.  Attachment – Land Capacity by Zone  Land capacity by zone is shown on the attached spreadsheets.  City of RentonAppendix BLand Capacity ResultsAlternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred AlternativeABCDABCDABCDABCDVacant LandRedevelopable LandTotal Vacant LandRedevelopable LandTotal Vacant LandRedevelopable LandTotal Vacant LandRedevelopable LandTotalSingle-Family Single-Family Single-Family Single-FamilyR-10 10 011R-10 10 010R-10 10 010R-10 4 04R-14 6 2733R-14 3 9699R-14 3 318321R-14 3 320323Subtotal16 27 43Sunset Terrace R-14n/a 0Sunset Terrace R-1466Sunset Terrace R-1466Subtotal13 96 109Subtotal13 324 338Subtotal7 326 334MultifamilyRM-F20 5 26Multifamily Multifamily MultifamilySubtotal20 5 26RM-F20 5 26RM-F20 5 26RM-F20 5 26Subtotal20 5 26Subtotal20 5 26Subtotal20 5 26Mixed-UseCV265 938 1,203Mixed-Use Mixed-Use Mixed-UseCapacity in pipeline217 217CV42 131 173CV65 314 379CV145 314 459Subtotal265 1,155 1,420CV214 808 821CV218 1,054 1,072CV218 1,026 1,044Total1,489Sunset Terrace CV0 312 312Sunset Terrace CV0 475 475Sunset Terrace CV0 260 260Capacity in pipeline217 217Capacity in pipeline217 217Capacity in pipeline217 217Subtotal55 1,468 1,523Subtotal83 2,060 2,143Subtotal163 1,817 1,980Vacant LandRedevelopable LandTotalTotal1,658Total2,507Total2,339CommercialCN7310Vacant LandRedevelopable LandTotal Vacant LandRedevelopable LandTotal Vacant LandRedevelopable LandTotalSubtotal7310Commercial Commercial CommercialMixed-UseCN426CN426CN426CV146 699 845Subtotal426Subtotal426Subtotal426Capacity in pipeline88Subtotal146 707 853Mixed-Use Mixed-Use Mixed-UseCV27 50 76CV42 168 210CV42 168 210Total153 710863CV229 1,729 1,759CV246 2,726 2,772CV246 2,653 2,699Education 51Sunset Terrace0 164 164Sunset Terrace000Sunset Terrace07979New total 914Capacity in pipeline88Capacity in pipeline88Capacity in pipeline88Subtotal56 1,951 2,007Subtotal89 2,902 2,990Subtotal89 2,907 2,996Total2,013Total3,178Total3,002Education 152 Education 152 Education 152New total 2,165 New total 3,33038New total 3,192Community services adjustment in Sunset TerraceZoningEmployment Capacity (Jobs) on:ZoningEmployment Capacity (Jobs) on:ZoningEmployment Capacity (Jobs) on:Zoning Housing Capacity (Units) on:ZoningEmployment Capacity (Jobs) on:Zoning Housing Capacity (Units) on: Zoning Housing Capacity (Units) on: Zoning Housing Capacity (Units) on:Sunset Area Community Planned ActionFinal NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact StatementB‐7February 2011ICF 593.10   Appendix C Potential Preferred Alternative Phasing and Variants of Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Conceptual Plans Similar to Preferred Alternative   Phasing Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Concept—Preferred Alternative Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS Multifamily: Flats Multifamily: Townhouses Civic/Community Services Retail/Commercial/Mixed-Use Active park/open space Passive open space Passive open space: plaza Note: The central open space will be designed and programmed at a later date. Considerations would include active and passive recreation, community gardens, and community gathering areas. 0’ 100’ 200’ 300’ 400’ N Existing buildings to remain   Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area (STRA): Final Preferred Alternative Program Summary Building Number/ Use Stories Built GSF Units Parking Off-street Parking On-street Open space GSF 1. Multi-family: Flats and Townhomes 4 46,433 42 63 6 2. Multi-family: Flats 4 44,000 40 54 3. Multi-family: Townhomes 2 4,395 3 4 8 4. Multi-family: Townhomes 2 7,325 5 9 5. Multi-family: Flats 4 42,000 40 32 20 6. Multi-family: Flats 4 42,000 36 32 7. Multi-family: Flats 4 47,600 36 32 8. Mixed use: Retail and Multi-family Flats 4 R: 1,000 Mf: 46,600 40 40 9. Library 1 15,000 0 116 23 Woonerf: 12,000 Plaza: 2,00010. Mixed use: Community Service/ Retail and Multi-family Flats 4 Cs/R: 15,000 Mf: 45,000 45 11. Mixed use: Community Service / Multi- family Flats 4 Cs: 12,500 Mf: 77,600 80 136 6 12. Neighborhood Park 16 100,000 13. Multi-family: Townhomes 2 7,325 5 10 14. Multi-family: Townhomes 2 7,325 5 10 15. Multi-family: Townhomes 2 7,325 5 10 16. Multi-family: Townhomes 2 5,860 4 8 17. Multi-family: Townhomes 2 5,860 4 8 TOTAL NEW DEVELOPMENT 440,548 390*564 79 114,000 *RHA is committed to 1:1 replacement of the 100 existing public housing units. Total New Development in the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area includes replacement public housing units. Up to 20% of the replacement housing units may be provided outside of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment, but within the Sunset neighborhood. 2 1 3 4 S u n s e t B l v d . N E Harrington Ave. NEGlennwood Ave. NENE 1 0 t h S t . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213 14 15 16Edmonds Ave. NE17 Sunset Area Planned Action EIS FEIS: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area 3/14/11 Final Preferred Alternative Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Goals: 1:1 replacement of existing 100 Sunset Terrace public housing units: (20) 1 bedroom, (36) 2 bedrooms, (36) 3 bedrooms, (8) 4 bedrooms• Provide new affordable and market rate rental housing to accommodate a mixed-income community that includes Sunset Terrace property • and nearby RHA or City owned sites Maximize the visibility and location – the heart of Sunset Area• Act as a catalyst for improvements and investments in the Sunset Area• Integrate Sunset Terrace site and residents with the surrounding neighborhood• Provide amenities to be shared by neighborhoods, including a “third place” for all to gather, and open space opportunities such as active • recreation and community garden space Improve the pedestrian realm and connection across Sunset Boulevar• d Provide a mix of uses, including residential, open space, and potential for community, civic, retail, or commercial• Stormwater/ raingarden Community garden Su n s e t L n .sound attenuation setbackwoonerf/shared streetso u n d a t t e n u a t i o n se t b a c k Neighborhood Park Multi-family: Flats Multi-family: Townhouses Civic / Community Services Retail / Commercial / Mixed-Use Active park / open space Passive open space Passive open space: plaza Existing buildings to remain 0’100’200’300’400’ N   Sunset Area Planned Action EIS EIS: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area Studies 2/10/11 Note: Sound Attenuation numbers are reversed east and west of Harrington Avenue NE - should be 65 and 70 feet respectively. Concept 1 Adjusted setbacks at library and building 10 Adjusted library footprint• 10,000 sf footprint for Building 10• On-street parking provided on Sunset Lane east of Harrington: 25 stalls• Off-street parking provided: 49 stalls (31 at library; 18 at bldg 10)• Total parking provided: 74 stalls (asssumes 1 level of underground parking)• Parking required: Total: 101 stalls: Library (45 stalls), Building 10 (56 stalls, assuming 30 units = • 36stalls + 10K office = 20 stalls) does not include shared parking or other reductions Park area: 2.4 acres• 1” = 40’ Parcel lines Parking Diagram, NTS Sunset Area Planned Action EIS EIS: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area Studies 2/10/11 Note: Sound Attenuation numbers are reversed east and west of Harrington Avenue NE - should be 65 and 70 feet respectively. Concept 2 Sunset Lane jog Adjusted library footprint• New Building 10 configuration: 15,000 sf footprint• Shared access underground parking (one level) accessed from 10th Street• Plaza/3rd place/ drop off area• On-street parking provided on Sunset Lane east of Harrington: 25 stalls• Off-street parking provided: 61 stalls (39 at library; 10 at plaza; 22 at bldg 10)• Total parking provided: 86 stalls (assumes 1 level underground parking)• Parking required: Total: 132 stalls: Library (45 stalls), Building 10 (87 stalls, assuming 45 • units = 54 stalls + 10K office = 20 stalls, 5K retail = 13 stalls) does not include shared parking or other reductions Park area: 2.1 acres• 1” = 40’ Parcel lines Parking Diagram, NTS Sunset Area Planned Action EIS EIS: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area Studies 2/10/11 Note: Sound Attenuation numbers are reversed east and west of Harrington Avenue NE - should be 65 and 70 feet respectively. Concept 3 Realigned Sunset Lane Sunset Lane realigned north to accomodate 120’ deep building and double loaded parking ga-• rage Adjusted library footprint• New Building 10 configuration: 15,000 sf footprint• Shared access underground parking (one level) accessed from 10th Street• Plaza/3rd place• On-street parking provided on Sunset Lane east of Harrington: 23 stalls• Off-street parking provided: 116 stalls (shared parking garage podium)• Total parking provided: 136 stalls• Parking required: Total: 132 stalls: Library (45 stalls), Building 10 (87 stalls, assuming 45 units = • 54 stalls + 10K office = 20 stalls, 5K retail = 13 stalls) does not include shared parking or other reductions Park area: 2.3 acres• 1” = 40’ Parcel lines Parking Diagram, NTS   Appendix D Hillcrest Worksession   SUNSET AREA: HILLCREST WORKSESSION NOVEMBER 22, 2010 Prepared by Mithun, Inc. Creative opportunities for a healthy, intergenerational community This page intentionally left blank. Page 3 of 20 Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession For Printing: Blue -- CMYK -- 100, 52, 0, 0 Green -- CMYK -- 89, 0, 90, 0 For Digital: Blue -- RGB -- 41, 105, 157 Green -- RGB -- 69, 158, 59 For Web: Blue -- HEX -- #29699D Green -- HEX -- #459E3C For Black and White: Blue -- Grayscale -- 100% K Green -- Grayscale -- 40% K SUNSET AREA HILLCREST WORKSESSION REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Acknowledgements II. Purpose and Background III. Partner Updates and Activities IV. Worksession Summary: Hillcrest Guiding Principles Program Elements Program and Operations Partnering Opportunities Site and Infrastructure Opportunities APPENdICES Precedents: Learning and Family Development Centers New Holly Neighborhood Campus Neighborhood House’s High Point Center Gladstone Center for Families and Children Worksession Agenda Page 4 of 20 Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession For Printing: Blue -- CMYK -- 100, 52, 0, 0 Green -- CMYK -- 89, 0, 90, 0 For Digital: Blue -- RGB -- 41, 105, 157 Green -- RGB -- 69, 158, 59 For Web: Blue -- HEX -- #29699D Green -- HEX -- #459E3C For Black and White: Blue -- Grayscale -- 100% K Green -- Grayscale -- 40% K I. ACKNOWLEdGEMENTS Thank you to the Worksession Participants: Terry Higashiyama City of Renton, Community Services, Administrator Alex Pietsch City of Renton, Community & Economic Development, Administrator Leslie Betlach City of Renton, Community Services, Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director Kelly Beymer City of Renton, Community Services, Parks and Golf Course Director Suzanne Dale Estey City of Renton, Community & Economic Development, Economic Development Director Chip Vincent City of Renton, Community & Economic Development, Planning Director Todd Black City of Renton, Community Services, Capital Projects Coordinator Erika Conkling City of Renton, Community & Economic Development, Senior Planner Mark Santos-Johnson City of Renton, Community & Economic Development, Senior Economic Development Specialist Rocale Timmons City of Renton, Community & Economic Development, Associate Planner Randy Matheson Renton School District, Executive Director, Community Relations Rick Stracke Renton School District, Executive Director, Facilities & Operations Doug DuCharme BLRB Architects Calvin Gasaway Greene Gasaway Architects Brad Medrud AHBL Tod McBryan Heffron Transportation Mark Gropper Renton Housing Authority, Deputy Executive Director Joel Ing Shelter Resources, Inc. Facilitated by: Stephen Antupit Mithun Erin Christensen Mithun Jeff Benesi Mithun Chris Webb Chris Webb and Associates, Inc. Dustin Atchison CH2M Hill Page 5 of 20 Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession For Printing: Blue -- CMYK -- 100, 52, 0, 0 Green -- CMYK -- 89, 0, 90, 0 For Digital: Blue -- RGB -- 41, 105, 157 Green -- RGB -- 69, 158, 59 For Web: Blue -- HEX -- #29699D Green -- HEX -- #459E3C For Black and White: Blue -- Grayscale -- 100% K Green -- Grayscale -- 40% K II. PURPOSE and BACKGROUNd of HILLCREST SUPERBLOCK WORKSESSION In late 2009, a Community Investment Strategy (CIS) for the Sunset Area of Renton Highlands was adopted by Renton City Council. The CIS recommended further study of the Hillcrest “Superblock” to explore potential for leveraging City, Renton School District, and Renton Housing Authority resources. The “Family Village” concept presented in the CIS study suggested a vision of coordinated educational and open space/ recreation amenities, programming, and potential new housing on the 17-acre block of publicly owned land. The study also expressed potential for an intergenerational center. The City convened a worksession for these partners to explore shared opportunities at the Hillcrest “Superblock,” and in conjunction with both the Renton School District planning for the Hillcrest Elementary School site, and the continued planning of the Sunset Area by the City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority through the Sunset Area Planned Action EIS. The worksession was held the afternoon of October 27, 2010. III. PARTNER UPdATES ANd ACTIVITIES As presented at the Worksession: City of Renton: The City and the Housing Authority are conducting a joint Planned Action EIS for the Sunset Area, which • will be completed in spring of 2011. It includes consideration of impacts of future redevelopment of the Hillcrest “Superblock”. This Planned Action EIS presents an opportunity for consistency with the Hillcrest “Superblock” vision as developed by the stakeholders. Community Services is working with several service organizations to build an inclusive playground. • Currently, the City has preliminarily identified the North Highlands Community Center site as a potentially promising location. The City is currently updating the Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Natural Resource Plan which will • inform the future role of the North Highlands Community Center, as well as providing updated data on recreation and open space needs in the Sunset Area. The North Highlands Community Center is one of the oldest facilities owned by the City. It is well used by the community meeting and recreation activities. Renton School district: Hillcrest Elementary School has been identified as a likely site for construction of a new Early Childhood • Learning Center (ECLC), serving preschool and special needs. This new facility will also include outdoor play space. RSD anticipates this facility will be constructed and operational in about two to three years. Renton Housing Authority: RHA currently owns and operates 60 senior public housing units on the • Superblock at Hillcrest Terrace. RHA plans to construct a new 2,200 square foot laundry and community facility to serve these units on site. Hillcrest Terrace includes a one-acre parking area which is currently under utilized and could be an opportunity for a land swap or development as part of a broader vision. RHA also owns a one-acre property southeast of the Hillcrest block. RHA is planning the redevelopment of Sunset Terrace, a 100-unit public • housing project located at Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue. As part of redevelopment, the Housing Authority will provide replacement units, and is actively seeking opportunities to construct larger family units, such as townhouse unit types, in the Sunset Area. RHA plans to submit a Demo/Dispo application in April 2011 for Sunset Terrace. “Superblock” at Hillcrest; existing ownership includes the City, Renton School District, and Renton Housing Authority Sunset Area Community Investment Plan Opportunity Map NE 5th St NE 7th St NE 9th St NE 12th St McKnight Middle School Hillcrest Elementary School North Highlands Park Highlands Elementary School Renton Technical College Sunset Terrace Highlands Park Highlands Library Honey Creek Greenbelt Harrington Ave NENE 16t h St I-405Edmonds Ave NEKirkland Ave NENE Sunset BlvdNE 5th St NE 7th St NE 9th St NE 12th St McKnight Middle School Hillcrest Elementary School North Highlands Park Highlands Elementary School Renton Technical College Sunset Terrace Highlands Park Highlands Library Honey Creek Greenbelt Harrington Ave NENE 16th St I-405Edmonds Ave NEKirkland Ave NENE Sunset Blvd0 600 1200 1800 2400 feet NE 5th St NE 7th St NE 9th St NE 12th St McKnight Middle School Hillcrest Elementary School North Highlands Park Highlands Elementary School Renton Technical College Sunset Terrace Highlands Park Highlands Library Greenbelt Harrington Ave NENE 16th St I-405Edmonds Ave NEKirkland Ave NENE Sunset BlvdNE 5th St NE 7th St NE 9th St NE 12th St McKnight Middle School Hillcrest Elementary School North Highlands Park Highlands Elementary School Renton Technical College Sunset Terrace Highlands Park Highlands Library Greenbelt Harrington Ave NENE 16th St I-405Edmonds Ave NEKirkland Ave NENE Sunset Blvd0 600 1200 1800 2400 feet Publicly owned land (City of Renton, Renton Housing Authority, Renton School District, US/Federal Gov’t, and ROW) Hillcrest Terrace (RHA)Kirkland AveNE 1 6 t h S tIndex AveHarrington Ave Page 6 of 20 Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession For Printing: Blue -- CMYK -- 100, 52, 0, 0 Green -- CMYK -- 89, 0, 90, 0 For Digital: Blue -- RGB -- 41, 105, 157 Green -- RGB -- 69, 158, 59 For Web: Blue -- HEX -- #29699D Green -- HEX -- #459E3C For Black and White: Blue -- Grayscale -- 100% K Green -- Grayscale -- 40% K North Highlands Community CenterHillcrest Early Childhood Education Center Hillcrest Terrace N Highlands Community Center Hillcrest Early Childhood Education Center Play structures at N Highlands Park and Hillcrest School separated by fences McKnight Middle School Page 7 of 20 Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession For Printing: Blue -- CMYK -- 100, 52, 0, 0 Green -- CMYK -- 89, 0, 90, 0 For Digital: Blue -- RGB -- 41, 105, 157 Green -- RGB -- 69, 158, 59 For Web: Blue -- HEX -- #29699D Green -- HEX -- #459E3C For Black and White: Blue -- Grayscale -- 100% K Green -- Grayscale -- 40% K IV. WORKSESSION SUMMARY A large group discussion of leverage opportunities resulted in the following guiding principles for consideration of the Hillcrest “Superblock”. Hillcrest Guiding Principles: Seek ways to provide 1. coordinated services and amenities for families; the City, RSD, and RHA all use public money to serve the same populations. Support 2. Intergenerational services provided through coordinated service delivery. This desire is supported by the resident input during the City’s Highlands Phase II Task Force, and is supported by RHA because of the large number of senior residents in this area. Provide3. flexibility in use of or access to spaces for community events. RSD wants to be an educator and a “service”; schools should be considered community use spaces. Align4. with School Board goals while taking advantage of new partnerships. Seek efficiency in site development and infrastructure5. improvements, such as sharing parking or stormwater facilities. Consider the Hillcrest “Superblock” in the 6. context of the Sunset Area neighborhood; accommodate program elements from the Sunset Area. Ensure the Hillcrest “Superblock” is 7. walkable and connected to all residents, providing security, within the “Superblock” itself. Seek to provide 8. new large-family/ground-related housing units; if possible with available land. Willingness to 9. try new arrangements and new ideas, while keeping projects on time and on budget. Pursue10. green construction, low impact development (LID), geothermal and energy opportunities as a means to save money, attract funding, and provide educational opportunities. Interagency Hillcrest Worksession October 27, 2010 Page 8 of 20 Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession For Printing: Blue -- CMYK -- 100, 52, 0, 0 Green -- CMYK -- 89, 0, 90, 0 For Digital: Blue -- RGB -- 41, 105, 157 Green -- RGB -- 69, 158, 59 For Web: Blue -- HEX -- #29699D Green -- HEX -- #459E3C For Black and White: Blue -- Grayscale -- 100% K Green -- Grayscale -- 40% K PROGRAM ELEMENTS The Interagency group discussed the potential program elements that could be included in the long-term vision for the Hillcrest “Superblock”, as well as their priorities and alignment between the agencies. PROGRAM ELEMENTS PARTNERS RSd CITY RHA NOTES OUTdOOR SPACE Open space/ fields Desired Space Secure playground; casual open space Pick-up for frisbee, playing catch, etc. especially for youth Accessible to seniors to view activity from safe distance Play area Desired Space During school must be exclusive use Inclusive play area; could be accessible to school or with supervision With large family population would be desired Hard court area Desired Space Half-court basketball/ tennis wall; high visibility especially for basketball With large family population would be desired Covered play space Desired Space Yes Hard court options With large family population would be desired Community garden Desired Space Teaching resource with McKnight Priority Priority Natural Stormwater management Desired Space Shared use with no reduction in access to year-round recreation opportunities Rain gardens in vicinity of Hillcrest Terrace & distributed across block dog walking Desired Space Yes Yes Path that is accessible Gathering space Movies; festive; grass amphitheater CIRCULATION Parking and Student drop-off Desired Space Approx. 100 spaces for employees and drop-off For park/rec center less than 5 spaces for a stand-alone use. More would be needed if a joint-use facility were proposed, but could be shared parking. 70 staff; parents and drop off space needed Shared Opps Yes Yes Bus unload zone (separate from parking & drop-off) Desired Space Up to 12 buses at once (8 full size and 4 short buses) Access vans (dedicated drop-off space not needed) Max. should be about 500 students Page 9 of 20 Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession For Printing: Blue -- CMYK -- 100, 52, 0, 0 Green -- CMYK -- 89, 0, 90, 0 For Digital: Blue -- RGB -- 41, 105, 157 Green -- RGB -- 69, 158, 59 For Web: Blue -- HEX -- #29699D Green -- HEX -- #459E3C For Black and White: Blue -- Grayscale -- 100% K Green -- Grayscale -- 40% K PROGRAM ELEMENTS PARTNERS RSd CITY RHA NOTES INdOOR SPACE Meeting rooms Desired Space 2-3 conference rooms Yes Shared Opps Yes Yes Admin. Offices and workroom Desired Space 2-3 workrooms Yes Shared Opps No Classrooms Desired Space Yes Potential after-school programs Shared Opps Not likely Preferred Age- specific indoor recreation space Desired Space 2 indoor play spaces Opportunity to share space outside school hours preferred With large family population would be desired Kitchen & support space Desired Space Consider Summer Lunch and community garden classes opportunities for nutrition education dining facility Desired Space ?RHA provides a lunch 3x per week at Evergreen for wider residents including Hillcrest currently Gym Desired Space 2 indoor play spaces 2 gyms With large family population would be desired Shared Opportunities Yes; not limited to school age Yes; not limited to school age Restrooms Desired Space Yes; public access Shared Opportunities Would consider For outdoor park users and indoor use Storage Desired Space Yes Yes HOUSING Families Desired Space Yes; Sunset Terrace replacement units Significant existing senior housing in area Page 10 of 20 Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession For Printing: Blue -- CMYK -- 100, 52, 0, 0 Green -- CMYK -- 89, 0, 90, 0 For Digital: Blue -- RGB -- 41, 105, 157 Green -- RGB -- 69, 158, 59 For Web: Blue -- HEX -- #29699D Green -- HEX -- #459E3C For Black and White: Blue -- Grayscale -- 100% K Green -- Grayscale -- 40% K PROGRAM ANd OPERATIONS PARTNERING OPPORTUNITIES Part of the worksession’s small group exercise included discussion of opportunities for the three agencies (and other service providers) to partner in ways that support complementary operations and programs, as well as avoiding duplicate activities. This theme built on a shared acknowledgment that the City, RSD, and RHA all serve many of the same families, sometimes just at different times of day or year, or through different points of contact. The small group exploration of possibilities also built on a presentation of several precedent projects: The New Holly Neighborhood Campus• Neighborhood House’s High Point Center• The Gladstone Center for Children and Families• Interagency Hillcrest Worksession October 27, 2010 While each of these example precedents varied greatly in ownership, governance and facility development specifics, they all illustrated successful solutions in co-location and service delivery coordination. (Detailed synopses of the three precedents presented can be found in the Appendix to this report). Page 11 of 20 Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession For Printing: Blue -- CMYK -- 100, 52, 0, 0 Green -- CMYK -- 89, 0, 90, 0 For Digital: Blue -- RGB -- 41, 105, 157 Green -- RGB -- 69, 158, 59 For Web: Blue -- HEX -- #29699D Green -- HEX -- #459E3C For Black and White: Blue -- Grayscale -- 100% K Green -- Grayscale -- 40% K This page intentionally left blank. Page 12 of 20 Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession For Printing: Blue -- CMYK -- 100, 52, 0, 0 Green -- CMYK -- 89, 0, 90, 0 For Digital: Blue -- RGB -- 41, 105, 157 Green -- RGB -- 69, 158, 59 For Web: Blue -- HEX -- #29699D Green -- HEX -- #459E3C For Black and White: Blue -- Grayscale -- 100% K Green -- Grayscale -- 40% K SITE ANd INFRASTRUCTURE OPPORTUNITIES During the worksession, participants brainstormed opportunities in three small groups. A few basic concepts were discussed, which include a range of sharing opportunities between a new Early Childhood Learning Center (ECLC), community service spaces, open space, and play areas. These range from co-locating within a shared facility to creating two separate facilities with shared infrastructure and parking including open space between them. Several elements were common to the conceptual layout options: Passive open space serving daytime and resident users will be designed to allow flexible use by a variety • of user groups, from dog-walking to casual recreational use and gardening Landscape elements will serve multiple purposes, including reduction of stormwater treatment facilities • required, aesthetic enjoyment, and delineating various connections and use areas on the “Superblock” and to the wider community RHA’s housing stock will be complemented by additional ground-related large family units, to take • advantage of the rich availability of supportive services developed on the superblock Coordinated delivery of family support services will engage RHA, City of Renton, RSD, and other partner • providers (Refer to Appendix for precedent examples) To the extent possible, parking will be shared amongst user groups to reduce the area and stormwater • infrastructure required, while taking care to clearly delineate access points and ensure safety for students and youth activities Page 13 of 20 Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession For Printing: Blue -- CMYK -- 100, 52, 0, 0 Green -- CMYK -- 89, 0, 90, 0 For Digital: Blue -- RGB -- 41, 105, 157 Green -- RGB -- 69, 158, 59 For Web: Blue -- HEX -- #29699D Green -- HEX -- #459E3C For Black and White: Blue -- Grayscale -- 100% K Green -- Grayscale -- 40% K ECLC Community Service (upper level in Opt A) Play area Community Garden Open Space Housing Service P drop-offP P drop-off Bus loading Service Option B allows RSD to operate current on-site programs in Hillcrest School until completion of the new ECLC on the adjacent area of the superblock. Community services would co-locate adjacent to, and in coordinated delivery with, RSD’s family support function in the new facility. Existing North Highlands Neighborhood Center would be displaced during construction. The portion of the site currently occupied by Hillcrest School would be reconfigured to provide destination inclusive play area, community garden, and some large family housing in ground related units, within a walkable and well connected community. Option A requires RSD to relocate the current Hillcrest School programs temporarily off-site during construction. The new ECLC programs would be complemented by co-locating community services above a portion of the ECLC in an upper level structure with controlled access. Additional housing adjacent to open space, community gardens, play areas, and ECLC supports large families on the current site of the North Highlands Neighborhood Center in a walkable, connected community. Option A Option B Bus loadingECLC Community Service Play area Community Garden Open Space Housing Page 14 of 20 Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession For Printing: Blue -- CMYK -- 100, 52, 0, 0 Green -- CMYK -- 89, 0, 90, 0 For Digital: Blue -- RGB -- 41, 105, 157 Green -- RGB -- 69, 158, 59 For Web: Blue -- HEX -- #29699D Green -- HEX -- #459E3C For Black and White: Blue -- Grayscale -- 100% K Green -- Grayscale -- 40% KBus loadingService Pdrop-offGym? P Option C focuses the new ECLC and community services around a shared green space and play area. A new ECLC on the existing Hillcrest School site would require a temporary off-site location for RSD programs. A separate structure for community services and a shared gymnasium would also increase infrastructure and parking needs, since co-location sharing opportunities would be reduced. However, providing a second gymnasium would be duplicative and costly. Additional housing, conveniently located next to open space, community services, and ECLC, serves large families with ground related choices and supportive services in a walkable, connected community. Option C ECLC Community Service Play area Community GardenOption d Option D separates a new ECLC structure from a future Community Service center, allowing new construction of RSD’s ECLC to be completed on (current) city property before removal of the existing Hillcrest School building. Once removed, that site would accommodate a Community Service center, sharing with the ECLC a centrally-located destination play area. Shared parking opportunities would be possible only after demolition of the current Hillcrest School, but could also potentially serve an increment of additional ground-related family housing on the northwestern edge of the superblock. Informal open space for casual community use would be located near the existing school play field. Open Space Housing Sport court / overflow parking Bus loading Service drop-offP ECLC Community Service Play area Community Garden Open Space Housing Page 15 of 20 Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession For Printing: Blue -- CMYK -- 100, 52, 0, 0 Green -- CMYK -- 89, 0, 90, 0 For Digital: Blue -- RGB -- 41, 105, 157 Green -- RGB -- 69, 158, 59 For Web: Blue -- HEX -- #29699D Green -- HEX -- #459E3C For Black and White: Blue -- Grayscale -- 100% K Green -- Grayscale -- 40% K This page intentionally left blank. © Mithun 2009 Pier 56 1201 Alaskan Way Seattle WA 98101 206.623.3344 mithun.com Page 17 of 20 Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession For Printing: Blue -- CMYK -- 100, 52, 0, 0 Green -- CMYK -- 89, 0, 90, 0 For Digital: Blue -- RGB -- 41, 105, 157 Green -- RGB -- 69, 158, 59 For Web: Blue -- HEX -- #29699D Green -- HEX -- #459E3C For Black and White: Blue -- Grayscale -- 100% K Green -- Grayscale -- 40% K Child Development Megumi Pre-School• Neighborhood House - Early Head Start• Neighborhood House - Head Start• Citizenship Center for Career Alternatives• Community Building Community Building Office• Counseling Atlantic Street Center: Youth & Family Counseling• Education Catholic Community Services: Youth Tutoring • Program East African Community Services • Horn of Africa Services • South Seattle Community College: Learning • Center at New Holly Vietnamese Friendship Association• Employment The Job Connection • Health Seattle University School of Nursing• Library Seattle Public Library • Teens Atlantic Street Center: Teen Center• Youth & Family Atlantic Street Center: Family Center • Girl Scouts: Skills for Life• Neighborhood House: Family and Social Services Appendix Precedents: Learning and Family development Centers New Holly Neighborhood Campus Page 18 of 20 Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession For Printing: Blue -- CMYK -- 100, 52, 0, 0 Green -- CMYK -- 89, 0, 90, 0 For Digital: Blue -- RGB -- 41, 105, 157 Green -- RGB -- 69, 158, 59 For Web: Blue -- HEX -- #29699D Green -- HEX -- #459E3C For Black and White: Blue -- Grayscale -- 100% K Green -- Grayscale -- 40% K The Family Center is dedicated to supporting families by providing programs that strengthen and foster relationships among individuals, children and communities. The multilingual, multicultural staff engage, educate and empower the community in its mission to help families attain self-sufficiency. This is achieved through a wide range of interactive, development-focused Family Center programs: - Play and Learn - Family Night - Cambodian Community Club - Vietnamese Tea - ESL/Citizenship Class - Community Leadership Program - Art and Block - Family Advisory Council - Arts & Crafts Workshop Services 0 - 3 Years 3 - 5 Years Children Teens Adults Seniors The Family Center Neighborhood House’s High Point Center provides services that strengthen High Point families and support the development of a healthy, vibrant and green community. The center is also a place where families from all walks of life can gather and share food, stories and experiences. It’s a community living room for everything from town meetings to neighborhood potlucks, book clubs to Head Start classes. Appendix Precedents: Learning and Family development Centers Neighborhood House’s High Point Center Page 19 of 20 Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession For Printing: Blue -- CMYK -- 100, 52, 0, 0 Green -- CMYK -- 89, 0, 90, 0 For Digital: Blue -- RGB -- 41, 105, 157 Green -- RGB -- 69, 158, 59 For Web: Blue -- HEX -- #29699D Green -- HEX -- #459E3C For Black and White: Blue -- Grayscale -- 100% K Green -- Grayscale -- 40% K Gladstone Center for Children and Families First facility in Oregon that provides a continuum of services for young children and their families in one location. 30,000 square foot Early Childhood facility (former Thriftway store) combines: District’s Kindergarten classes with • County Education Services District’s Early Childhood Program and• Head Start Classes• Other partners include Healthy Start of Clackamas County, Community College, County Department of Human Services and County Mental Health. Appendix Precedents: Learning and Family development Centers Gladstone Center for Children and Families Page 20 of 20 Sunset Area: Hillcrest Worksession For Printing: Blue -- CMYK -- 100, 52, 0, 0 Green -- CMYK -- 89, 0, 90, 0 For Digital: Blue -- RGB -- 41, 105, 157 Green -- RGB -- 69, 158, 59 For Web: Blue -- HEX -- #29699D Green -- HEX -- #459E3C For Black and White: Blue -- Grayscale -- 100% K Green -- Grayscale -- 40% K Appendix Renton Sunset Area/Hillcrest Worksession October 27th, 2010 Meeting Agenda 1 PM Intros / Review Agenda / Ground Rules / Goals for the day 1:15 Partner Updates – 5 min. each City Sunset Area PA/EIS and North Highlands Neighborhood Center RSD Bond/Early Childhood Programs RHA Sunset Terrace / Hillcrest Terrace 2:00 Precedents – 10 min.(Stephen A.) 2:10 Hillcrest Goals and Matrix – Large Group / Input – 45 min (Mithun Team facilitiates) 3:00 3 Small Groups More work on Matrix--Program & Operations Partnering Opportunities – 25 min Site Opportunities: Shared Infrastructure, Program adjacencies – 25 min Timeline: Phasing / Critical Path – 10 min 4:00 Report Out 10 minutes each group 4:30 Synthesis / Commitment to next steps 5:00 ADJOURN 1:30 Appendix E Proposed Planned Action Ordinance   March 2011 - Proposed Planned Action Ordinance - Sunset Area Planned Action EIS 1 ORDINANCE NO.________ AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Renton, Washington, establishing a Planned Action for the Sunset Area Community pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act WHEREAS, the State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”) and implementing rules provide for the integration of environmental review with land use planning and project review through designation of “Planned Actions” by jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A (“GMA”); and WHEREAS, the City has adopted a 2004 Comprehensive Plan complying with the GMA; and WHEREAS, the City has engaged in extensive subarea planning for the Sunset Area since 2005 and adopted a Community Investment Strategy in 2009 to guide the area’s growth and redevelopment, and revitalization of the Sunset Area is desirable and in the best interest of the City; and WHEREAS, the City adopted regulations and design guidelines for the Sunset Area in 2007; and WHEREAS, the Sunset Area includes the Sunset Terrace public housing project which will be proposed for redevelopment by the Renton Housing Authority; and WHEREAS, the Sunset Area Community Planned Action EIS identifies impacts and mitigation measures associated with planned development in the area; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIS was issued on December 17, 2010 and subject to a 45- day comment period; and WHEREAS, the Final EIS was issued on April 1, 2011 and received a 30-day review period; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted development regulations which will help protect the environment, and has adopted zoning regulations specific to the Sunset area which will guide the amount, location, form, and quality of desired development; and WHEREAS, designation of a Planned Action expedites the permitting process for subsequent, implementing projects whose impacts have been previously addressed in a Planned Action environmental impact statement (“EIS”), and thereby encourages desired growth and economic development; and March 2011 - Proposed Planned Action Ordinance - Sunset Area Planned Action EIS 2 WHEREAS, the Renton Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 5 and April 6, 2011 regarding the proposed Planned Action; and WHEREAS, the Sunset Area Community is deemed to be appropriate for designation of a Planned Action. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. - Purpose. The City Council declares that the purposes of this ordinance are to: A. Combine analysis of environmental impacts with the City’s development of plans and regulations; B. Designate the Sunset Area Community as a Planned Action for purposes of environmental review and permitting of subsequent, implementing projects pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C.031; C. Determine that the EIS prepared for the Sunset Area Community meets the requirements of a Planned Action EIS pursuant to SEPA; D. Establish criteria and procedures, consistent with state law, that will determine whether subsequent, implementing projects qualify as Planned Actions; E. Provide the public with information about Planned Actions and how the City will process applications for implementing projects; F. Streamline and expedite the land use review and approval process for qualifying projects by relying on the EIS completed for the Planned Action; and G. Apply the City’s development regulations together with the mitigation measures described in the EIS and this Ordinance to address the impacts of future development contemplated by the Planned Action. SECTION 2. – Findings. The City Council finds as follows: A. The City is subject to the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA, RCW 36.70A), and is located within an Urban Growth Area; B. The City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan complying with the GMA, and is amending the Comprehensive Plan to address transportation improvements and capital facilities specific to the Sunset Area C. The City has adopted a Community Investment Strategy, development regulations and design guidelines specific to the Sunset Area which will guide growth and revitalization of the area, including the Sunset Terrace public housing project; March 2011 - Proposed Planned Action Ordinance - Sunset Area Planned Action EIS 3 D. The City has prepared an EIS for the Sunset Area (“Sunset Area Community Planned Action EIS”), and finds that this EIS adequately addresses the probable significant environmental impacts associated with the type and amount of development planned to occur in the designated Planned Action area; E. The mitigation measures identified in the Planned Action EIS and attached to this ordinance as Exhibit B, together with adopted City development regulations, will adequately mitigate significant impacts from development within the Planned Action area; F. The Comprehensive Plan and Planned Action EIS identify the location, type and amount of development that is contemplated by the Planned Action; G. Future projects that are implemented consistent with the Planned Action will protect the environment, benefit the public and enhance economic development; H. The City has provided numerous opportunities for meaningful public involvement in the proposed Planned Action, has considered all comments received, and, as appropriate, has modified the proposal or mitigation measures in response to comments; I. The Sunset Area Planned Action is not an essential public facility as defined by RCW 36.70A.200(1); J. The Planned Action area applies to a defined area that is smaller than the overall City boundaries; and K. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed Planned Action. SECTION 3. - Procedures and Criteria for Evaluating and Determining Projects as Planned Actions. A. Planned Action Area. The Planned Action designation shall apply to the area shown in Exhibit A. B. Environmental Document. A Planned Action determination for a site-specific implementing project application shall be based on the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIS issued by the City on December 17, 2010 and the Final EIS published on April 1, 2011. The Draft and Final EISs shall comprise the Planned Action EIS. The mitigation measures contained in Exhibit B are based upon the findings of the Planned Action EIS and shall, along with adopted City regulations, provide the framework that the City will use to impose appropriate conditions on qualifying Planned Action projects. March 2011 - Proposed Planned Action Ordinance - Sunset Area Planned Action EIS 4 C. Planned Action Designated. Land uses and activities described in the Planned Action EIS, subject to the thresholds described in subsection 3.D and the mitigation measures contained in Exhibit B, are designated Planned Actions or Planned Action Projects pursuant to RCW 43.21C.031. A development application for a site-specific Planned Action project located within the Sunset Area shall be designated a Planned Action if it meets the criteria set forth in subsection 3.D of this ordinance and applicable laws, codes, development regulations and standards of the City. D. Planned Action Qualifications. The following thresholds shall be used to determine if a site-specific development proposed within the Sunset Area is contemplated by the Planned Action and has had its environmental impacts evaluated in the Planned Action EIS: (1) Land Use. (a) The following general categories/types of land uses are considered Planned Actions: Single family and multi-family residential; schools; parks; community and public facilities; office and conference; retail; entertainment and recreation; services; utilities; and mixed-use development incorporating more than one use category where permitted. (b) Individual land uses considered as Planned Actions shall include those uses specifically listed in RMC 4-2-060 as permitted or conditionally permitted in the zoning classifications applied to properties within the Planned Action area provided they are consistent with the general categories/types of land uses in (1)(a). (2) Development Thresholds. (a) The following amount of various new land uses are anticipated by the Planned Action: Land Use Development Amount Alternative 3 FEIS Preferred Alt Residential 2,506 units 2,339 units Schools 57,010 gross square feet 57,010 gross square feet Parks 0.25 acres 3 acres Office/Service 776,805 gross square feet 745,810 gross square feet Retail 476,299 gross square feet 457,119 gross square feet Utilities Tbd Tbd (b) Shifting development amounts between categories of uses may be permitted so long as the total build-out does not exceed the aggregate amount of development and trip generation reviewed in the EIS, and so long as the impacts of that development have been identified in the Planned Action EIS and are mitigated consistent with Exhibit B. (c) If future development proposals in the Sunset Planned Action area exceed the development thresholds specified in this ordinance, further environmental review may be required pursuant to WAC 197-11-172. Further, if proposed development would alter the March 2011 - Proposed Planned Action Ordinance - Sunset Area Planned Action EIS 5 assumptions and analysis in the Planned Action EIS, further environmental review may be required. (3) Building Height. Building height shall not exceed those permitted by the applicable zoning district, as permitted in the Renton Municipal Code. (4) Transportation. (a) Trip Ranges & Thresholds. The number of new PM Peak Hour Trips anticipated in the Planned Action Area and reviewed in the EIS are as follows: Alternative/Period PM Peak Hour Trips* 2006 2,082 trips 2030 Alternative 3 5,555 trips 2030 Preferred Alt 5,386 trips Net increase from 2006 -> 2030 Alternative 3 3,473 trips Net increase from 2006 -> 2030 Preferred Alternative 3,304 trips *all P.M. peak hour trips with at least one end (origin, destination, or both) in TAZs containing the study area Uses or activities that would exceed the range of maximum trip levels will require additional SEPA review. (b) Concurrency. The determination of transportation impacts shall be based on the City’s concurrency management program contained in RMC 4-6-070. (c) Off-Site Mitigation. As provided in the EIS and RMC 4-6-070, in order to mitigate transportation related impacts, all Planned Action Projects shall pay an environmental mitigation fee to participate in and pay a proportionate share of off-site improvements unless otherwise waived by the City Council. Off-site improvements are identified in Attachment B. (d) Administrator Discretion. The Administrator of Community and Economic Development or his/her designee shall have discretion to determine incremental and total trip generation, consistent with the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (latest edition) or an alternative manual accepted by the Administrator at his sole discretion, for each project permit application proposed under this Planned Action. (5) Elements of the Environment and Degree of Impacts. A proposed project that would result in a significant change in the type or degree of impacts to any of the elements of the environment analyzed in the Planned Action EIS, shall not qualify as a Planned Action. (6) Changed Conditions. Should environmental conditions change significantly from those analyzed in the Planned Action EIS, the City’s SEPA Responsible Official March 2011 - Proposed Planned Action Ordinance - Sunset Area Planned Action EIS 6 may determine that the Planned Action designation is no longer applicable until supplemental environmental review is conducted. E. Planned Action Review Criteria. (1) The City’s Environmental Review Committee may designate as “planned actions”, pursuant to RCW 43.21C.030, applications that meet all of the following conditions: (a) the proposal is located within the Planned Action area identified in Exhibit A of this ordinance; (b) the proposed uses and activities are consistent with those described in the Planned Action EIS and Section 3.D of this ordinance; (c) the proposal is within the Planned Action thresholds and other criteria of Section 3.D of this ordinance; (d) the proposal is consistent with the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and applicable zoning regulations; (e) the proposal’s significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified in the Planned Action EIS; (f) the proposal’s significant impacts have been mitigated by application of the measures identified in Exhibit B, and other applicable city regulations, together with any modifications or variances or special permits that may be required; (g) the proposal complies with all applicable local, state and/or federal laws and regulations, and the Environmental Review Committee determines that these constitute adequate mitigation; and (h) the proposal is not an essential public facility as defined by RCW 36.70A.200(1). (2) The City shall base its decision on review of a SEPA checklist, or an alternative form approved by the Department of Ecology, and review of the application and supporting documentation. (3) A proposal that meets the criteria of this section shall be considered to qualify and be designated as a planned action, consistent with the requirements or RCW 43.21C.030, WAC 197-11-164 et seq, and this ordinance. F. Effect of Planned Action. (1) Designation as a planned action project means that a qualifying proposal has been reviewed in accordance with this ordinance and found to be consistent with its development parameters and thresholds, and with the environmental analysis contained in the Planned Action EIS. (2) Upon determination by the City’s Environmental Review Committee that the proposal meets the criteria of Section 3.D and qualifies as a planned action, the proposal shall not require a SEPA threshold determination, preparation of an EIS, or be subject to further review pursuant to SEPA. March 2011 - Proposed Planned Action Ordinance - Sunset Area Planned Action EIS 7 G. Planned Action Permit Process. Applications for planned actions shall be reviewed pursuant to the following process: (1) Development applications shall meet all applicable requirements of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). Applications for planned actions shall be made on forms provided by the City and shall include a SEPA checklist, or an approved Planned Action checklist. (2) The City’s Development Services Division shall determine whether the application is complete as provided in RMC 4-8-100. (3) If the application is for a project within the Planned Action Area defined in Exhibit A, the application will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the criteria of this ordinance and thereby qualifies as a Planned Action project. The Environmental Review Committee shall notify the applicant of its decision. If the project is determined to qualify as a Planned Action, it shall proceed in accordance with the applicable permit review procedures specified in RMC 4-8-080G and 4-9, except that no SEPA threshold determination, EIS or additional SEPA review shall be required. The decision of the Environmental Review Committee regarding qualification as a Planned Action shall be final. (4) Public notice and review for projects that qualify as Planned Actions shall be tied to the underlying permit. The review process for the underlying permit shall be as provided in RMC 4-8-080G and 4-9. If notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit, the notice shall state that the project has qualified as a Planned Action. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no special notice is required by this ordinance. (5) If a project is determined to not qualify as a Planned Action, the Environmental Review Committee shall so notify the applicant and prescribe a SEPA review procedure consistent with the City’s SEPA regulations and the requirements of state law. The notice shall describe the elements of the application that result in failure to qualify as a Planned Action. (6) Projects that fail to qualify as Planned Actions may incorporate or otherwise use relevant elements of the Planned Action EIS, as well as other relevant SEPA documents, to meet their SEPA requirements. The Environmental Review Committee may limit the scope of SEPA review for the non-qualifying project to those issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Planned Action EIS. SECTION 4. - Monitoring and Review. A. The City shall monitor the progress of development in the designated Planned Action area to ensure that it is consistent with the assumptions of this ordinance and the March 2011 - Proposed Planned Action Ordinance - Sunset Area Planned Action EIS 8 Planned Action EIS regarding the type and amount of development and associated impacts, and with the mitigation measures and improvements planned for the Sunset Area. B. This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed no later than five years from its effective date by the Environmental Review Committee to determine the continuing relevance of its assumptions and findings with respect to environmental conditions in the Planned Action area, the impacts of development, and required mitigation measures. Based upon this review, the City may propose amendments to this ordinance and/or may supplement or revise the Planned Action EIS. SECTION 5. - Conflict. In the event of a conflict between this Ordinance or any mitigation measure imposed thereto, and any ordinance or regulation of the City, the provisions of this ordinance shall control EXCEPT that the provision of any Uniform Code shall supersede. SECTION 6. - Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or its application be declared to be unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the constitutionality or validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. SECTION 7. - Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. March 2011 - Proposed Planned Action Ordinance - Sunset Area Planned Action EIS 9 EXHIBIT A PLANNED ACTION AREA NE 12TH ST NE 7 T H S TEDMONDS AVE NEHARRINGTON AVE NENE SUNSET BLVDMONROE AVE NEBLAINE AVE NENE 16 T H S T ABERDEEN AVE NEOLYMPIA AVE NESUNSET BLVD NENE PAR K D R NE 10TH ST NE 6TH P L NE 10TH PL DAYTON AVE NENE 9TH STLYNNWOOD AVE NEINDEX AVE NEJEFFERSON AVE NENE 8T H P L NE 11TH ST NE 17TH PL KIRKLAND AVE NENE 8TH S T NE 9TH PL NE 7TH PL NE 11TH PL SUNSET LN NENE 15TH ST NE 13TH PL NE 21ST ST INDEX PL NENE 20TH ST GLENWOOD AVE NENE 19TH ST INDEX CT NENE 17TH STKIRKLAND PL NENE 18TH ST CAMAS AVE NENE 13 T H S T NE 6TH C I R FERNDALE CIR NENE 15TH PL NE 14TH ST MONROE AVE NEDAYTON AVE NENE 18TH ST GLENWOOD AVE NENE 9TH ST NE 20TH ST INDEX AVE NEABERDEEN AVE NENE 21ST STNE 21ST ST NE 13TH ST NE 14TH ST NE 21ST ST NE 8TH PL KIRKLAND AVE NESUNSET LN NENE 7TH STNE 8T H S T N E 1 0 T H S TDAYTON AVE NEINDEX AVE NENE 10TH STKIRKLAND AVE NENE 8TH ST NE 10TH PLDAYTON AVE NELYNNWOOD AVE NENE 2 0 T H S T CAMAS AVE NEFigure 2-1 Planned Action Study Area Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS Source: City of Renton; King County 00593.10/GIS - Revised: 10/12/2010City Limits Planned Action Study Area Subarea Central North South Sunset Mixed Use Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment 0 500 1,000 Feet March 2011 - Proposed Planned Action Ordinance - Sunset Area Planned Action EIS 10 EXHIBIT B PLANNED ACTION EIS MITIGATION MEASURES   Planned Action Ordinance 1 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Exhibit B: Sunset Area Community Planned Action EIS Mitigation Measures Table of Contents Introduction and Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 3 SEPA Terms ............................................................................................................................................. 3 General Interpretation ........................................................................................................................... 3 Summary of Proposal, Alternatives, and Land Capacity ........................................................................ 4 Proposal and Alternatives ................................................................................................................ 4 Land Capacity ................................................................................................................................... 4 Location .................................................................................................................................................. 5 Mitigation Document ............................................................................................................................. 5 1. Earth .................................................................................................................................... 6 2. Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 8 3. Water Resources ............................................................................................................... 14 4. Plants and Animals ............................................................................................................ 17 5. Energy ............................................................................................................................... 19 6. Noise ................................................................................................................................. 21 7. Environmental Health ....................................................................................................... 23 8. Land Use ............................................................................................................................ 26 9. Socioeconomics ................................................................................................................ 28 10. Housing ............................................................................................................................. 30 11. Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................... 32 12. Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 34 13. Historic/Cultural ................................................................................................................ 37 14. Transportation .................................................................................................................. 40 15. Parks and Recreation ........................................................................................................ 44 16. Public Services................................................................................................................... 46 17. Utilities .............................................................................................................................. 52 Advisory Notes ..................................................................................................................................... 56 Attachment 1: Draft EIS, Cultural Resources Appendix J, Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery ........................................................................................................ 58 Attachment 2: Figure 3.17-1 Potential Subarea Utility Improvements and Phasing ........................ 60 Water .................................................................................................................................................... 61 Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 61 Edmonds-Glenwood Phase 1 ......................................................................................................... 61 New Library .................................................................................................................................... 61 New Mixed-Use Building Adjacent to New Library .............................................................................. 62 RHA’s Piha Site ............................................................................................................................... 62 Planned Action Ordinance 2 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Sunset Terrace Redevelopment ..................................................................................................... 63 Edmonds-Glenwood Phase 2 ......................................................................................................... 63 Water Main Costs .......................................................................................................................... 64 Wastewater Collection ......................................................................................................................... 64 Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 64 Detailed Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 64 List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Land Capacity— Planned Action Alternatives ................................................... 5Table 2. Earth Significant Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 6Table 3. Earth Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................... 7Table 4. Air Quality Significant Impacts ........................................................................................................... 8Table 5. Air Quality Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................................... 11Table 6. Potential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures ........................................................................ 12Table 7. Water Resources Significant Impacts ............................................................................................ 14Table 8. Plants and Animals Significant Impacts ........................................................................................ 17Table 9. Energy Significant Impacts ................................................................................................................ 19Table 10. Energy Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................. 20Table 11. Noise Significant Impacts ................................................................................................................... 21Table 12. Noise Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................. 22Table 13. Environmental Health Impacts ........................................................................................................ 23Table 14. Environmental Health Mitigation Measures ............................................................................... 24Table 15. Land Use Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 26Table 16. Land Use Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................... 27Table 17. Socioeconomics Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 28Table 18. Socioeconomics Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................... 30Table 19. Housing Impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 30Table 20. Housing Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................... 32Table 21. Environmental Justice Impacts ........................................................................................................ 32Table 22. Environmental Justice Mitigation Measures ............................................................................... 34Table 23. Aesthetic Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 34Table 24. Aesthetic Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................... 36Table 25. Historic/Cultural Impacts .................................................................................................................. 37Table 26. Historic/Cultural Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 38Table 27. Transportation Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 40Table 28. Transportation Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 42Table 29. Parks and Recreation Impacts .......................................................................................................... 44Table 30. Parks and Recreation Mitigation Measures ................................................................................ 45Table 31. Public Services Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 46Table 32. Public Services Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 50Table 33. Utilities Impacts ...................................................................................................................................... 52Table 34. Utilities Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................ 54 Planned Action Ordinance 3 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Introduction and Purpose The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires environmental review for project and non-project proposals that are likely to have adverse impacts upon the environment. In order to meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and SEPA requirements, the City of Renton issued the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the City of Renton Sunset Area Community Planned Action on December 17, 2010 and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the City of Renton Sunset Area Community Planned Action on April 1, 2011. The Draft together with the Final EIS is referenced herein as the “EIS”. The EIS has identified significant beneficial and adverse impacts that are anticipated to occur with the future development of the Planned Action area, together with a number of possible measures to mitigate those significant adverse impacts. The purpose of this Mitigation Document is to establish specific mitigation measures, based upon significant adverse impacts identified in the EIS. The mitigation measures shall apply to future development proposals which are consistent with the Planned Action scenarios reviewed in the EIS, and which are located within the Renton Sunset Area Community Planned Action Study Area (see Exhibit A). SEPA Terms As used in this document, the words action, planned action, or proposal are defined as described below.  “Action” means projects or programs financed, licensed, regulated, conducted or approved by a governmental Agency. “Project actions” involve decisions on a specific project such as a construction or management activity for a defined geographic area. “Non-project” actions involve decisions about policies, plans or programs. (see WAC 197-11-704)  “Planned Action” refers to types of project actions that are designated by ordinance for a specific geographic area and addressed in an EIS, in conjunction with a comprehensive plan or subarea plan, a fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master planned development or phased project. (see WAC 197-11-164)  “Proposal” means a proposed action that may be an action and regulatory decision of an agency, or any action proposed by applicants. (see WAC 197-11-784) General Interpretation Where a mitigation measure includes the words “shall” or “will,” inclusion of that measure in project plans is mandatory in order to qualify a project as a Planned Action. Where “should” or “would” appear, the mitigation measure may be considered by the project applicant as a source of additional mitigation, as feasible or necessary, to ensure that a project qualifies as a Planned Action. Unless stated specifically otherwise, the mitigation measures that require preparation of plans, conduct of studies, construction of improvements, conduct of maintenance activities, etc., are the responsibility of the applicant or designee to fund and/or perform. Planned Action Ordinance 4 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Summary of Proposal, Alternatives, and Land Capacity Proposal and Alternatives The proposal is to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community and promote associated neighborhood growth and revitalization as part of a Planned Action. Redevelopment of the public housing community and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance would encourage redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area through land use transformation and growth, public service and infrastructure improvements, and a streamlined environmental review process. The Renton Housing Authority (RHA) is the proponent of the proposal’s primary development action, redevelopment of the existing Sunset Terrace public housing community; however, RHA would likely redevelop the property in partnership with other public and private non-profit and for-profit developers and agencies. The City of Renton (City) is responsible for public service and infrastructure improvements for Sunset Terrace and the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood, is the agency responsible for streamlining local permitting and environmental review through this Planned Action, and is the agency that would regulate private neighborhood redevelopment in accordance with its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. The City analyzed three alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) as part of the Draft EIS to determine its Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is evaluated in the Final EIS. All four alternatives are described below. Alternative 1 (No Action). RHA would develop affordable housing on two vacant properties, but it would not redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing property. Very limited public investment would be implemented by the City, resulting in lesser redevelopment across the Planned Action Study Area. A Planned Action would not be designated. The No Action Alternative is required to be studied under NEPA and SEPA. Alternative 2. This alternative represents a moderate level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area based on investment in mixed-income housing and mixed uses in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, targeted infrastructure and public services throughout the Planned Action Study Area, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Alternative 3. This alternative represents the highest level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area, based on investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with a greater number dwellings developed in a mixed-income, mixed-use style, major public investment in study area infrastructure and services, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Preferred Alternative. This alternative represents neighborhood growth similar to and slightly less than Alternative 3 in the Planned Action Study Area, based on investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with a moderate number dwellings developed in a mixed-income, mixed-use style oriented around a larger park space and loop road, major public investment in study area infrastructure and services, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Land Capacity To determine future growth scenarios for the next 20 years, a land capacity analysis was prepared. The alternatives produce different future growth estimates. Each would affect different amounts of property. Planned Action Ordinance 5 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document  Alternative 1 assumes that about 16% (35 acres) of the 213 net acres of Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop.  Alternative 2 assumes that about 32% (68 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop.  Alternative 3 assumes that approximately 40% (84 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop.  The Preferred Alternative assumes that approximately 40% (84 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop. The latter two alternatives – Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative which is similar – represent the higher growth levels studied in the EIS and differ by about 7%; these two alternatives are considered for the purposes of this mitigation document to be the “Planned Action Alternatives.” This mitigation document is based on the range of growth considered in the Planned Action Alternatives. More details on the components of the alternatives can be found in Final EIS Chapter 2. Table 1. Summary of Land Capacity— Planned Action Alternatives Dwelling Units/Jobs Net New Growth Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative Dwelling units 2,506 2,339 Population 5,789 5,403 Employment SF 1,310,113 1,247,444–1,259,944 Jobs 3,330 3,154–3,192 Location The Sunset Terrace public housing community is generally bounded by Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE on the north, NE 10th Street on the east, NE Sunset Boulevard (State Route [SR] 900) on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west. See Exhibit A of the Planned Action Ordinance. The Sunset Terrace public housing community is part of the Sunset Area Community neighborhood. This broader neighborhood is the Planned Action Study Area considered in the EIS; it is generally bounded by NE 21st Street on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7th Street on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE. See Exhibit A of the Planned Action Ordinance. Mitigation Document Based on the EIS, this Mitigation Document identifies significant adverse environmental impacts that are anticipated to occur as a result of development of planned action projects. Mitigation measures identified in the EIS are reiterated here for inclusion in proposed projects to mitigate related impacts and to qualify as Planned Action projects. Consistency review under the Planned Action, development plan review, and other permit approvals will be required for specific development actions under the Proposed Action pursuant to WAC 197- Planned Action Ordinance 6 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document 11-172. Additional project conditions may be imposed on planned action projects based upon the analysis of the proposal in relationship to independent requirements of the City, state or federal requirements or review criteria. Any applicant for a project within the Planned Action area may propose alternative mitigation measures, if appropriate and/or as a result of changed circumstances, in order to allow equivalent substitute mitigation for identified impacts. Such modifications shall be evaluated by the City’s SEPA Responsible Official prior to any project approvals by the City. In combination, regulations applicable to each element of the environment and mitigation measures identified in the EIS and documented in this Mitigation Document that are applied to any planned action proposal will adequately mitigate all significant environmental impacts associated with planned action proposals, except for those impacts that are identified as “significant unavoidable adverse impacts.” Provided below for each element of the environment analyzed in the EIS for the proposed action are: (a) summary of significant environmental impacts (construction, operation, indirect and cumulative); (b) a summary of unavoidable adverse impacts; (c) mitigation measures established by this mitigation document for both the Planned Action Study Area as a whole as well as the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea; and (d) a list of City policies/regulations on which mitigation measures are based. Advisory notes are included at the end of the document to list the federal, state, and local laws that act as mitigation measures. 1. Earth Significant Impacts Table 2. Earth Significant Impacts Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Erosion could increase as a result of soil disturbance; however, much of the existing soils are glacial outwash materials with low erosion potential. Codified best management practices minimize the potential for both erosion and erosion transport to waterways. Same as Planned Action Study Area Construction could require import and export of earth materials; however, with minimal planning and protection, the outwash soils in most of the study area could be reused as backfill, minimizing import and export. Similar to Planned Action Study Area. The underlying glacial outwash soils have the highest potential for reuse within the Planned Action Study Area and consequently the subarea. There is an increased risk of landsliding There are no mapped geologic hazards, Planned Action Ordinance 7 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea due to soil disturbance, changing drainage, or temporarily oversteepening slopes. However, a relatively small proportion of the study area is considered either steep slope or erosion hazard. Both the glacial outwash and till soils are generally strong and of low concern regarding slope instability. and thus a low potential for impacts. Operations Active seismicity in the Planned Action Study Area would require that inhabited structures, including buildings, bridges, and water tanks, be designed to withstand seismic loading. Same as Planned Action Study Area Indirect The major steep slope, erosion, and landslide hazard areas within the Planned Action Study Area extend beyond the study area boundaries. Development on the slope above (inside) the study area boundary could increase the risk of erosion and landsliding downslope (outside) of the study area. There are no mapped geologic hazards, and thus a low potential for impacts. Cumulative Same as indirect impacts above; intensive development around this hazard area outside of the Planned Action Study Area by other projects is not currently anticipated, but could increase the risk of erosion and landsliding. There are no mapped geologic hazards, and thus a low potential for impacts. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There are no significant unavoidable adverse earth impacts. Mitigation Measures Table 3. Earth Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The following mitigation measures shall apply to development throughout the Planned Action Study Area.  Apply erosion-control best management practices (BMPs), as described in Appendix D of the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual 1 Mitigation measures shall be the same as the Planned Action Study Area, except that there are no geologic hazard areas to avoid. . 1 City of Renton. 2010. City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. February. Appendix D, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Standards. Planned Action Ordinance 8 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea  Limit development in geologic hazard areas and their buffers, or require rigorous engineered design to reduce the hazard, as currently codified. Planned Action applicants shall identify in their applications the source of earth material to be used in construction and shall consider earth material reuse and provide information to the City regarding why earth material reuse is not feasible if it is not proposed. The City may condition the planned action application to provide for earth material reuse where feasible. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations – General RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations RMC 4-5-050 International Building Code RMC 4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards 2. Air Quality Significant Impacts Table 4. Air Quality Significant Impacts Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Dust from excavation and grading could cause temporary, localized increases in the ambient concentrations of fugitive dust and suspended particulate matter. Same as Planned Action Study Area Construction activities would likely require the use of diesel-powered, heavy trucks and smaller equipment such as generators and compressors. These engines would emit air pollutants that could slightly degrade local air quality in the immediate vicinity of the activity. Same as Planned Action Study Area Some construction activities could cause odors detectible to some Same as Planned Action Study Planned Action Ordinance 9 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea people in the vicinity of the activity, especially during paving operations using tar and asphalt. Such odors would be short-term and localized. Area Construction equipment and material hauling could temporarily increase traffic flow on city streets adjacent to a construction area. If construction delays traffic enough to significantly reduce travel speeds in the area, general traffic-related emissions would increase. Same as Planned Action Study Area Operations Emissions from Commercial Operations Stationary equipment, mechanical equipment, and trucks at loading docks at office and retail buildings could cause air pollution issues at adjacent residential property. However, new commercial facilities would be required to register their pollutant-emitting equipment and to use best available control technology to minimize emissions. Same as Planned Action Study Area Emissions From Vehicle Travel Tailpipe emissions from vehicles would be the major source of air pollutant emissions associated with growth. The net increases in vehicle miles travelled (VMT) forecast as a result of Planned Action alternatives are inconsequentially small compared to the Puget Sound regional VMT and its implied impact on regional emissions and photochemical smog. This would not alter Puget Sound Regional Council’s conclusion that future regional emissions will be less than the allowable emissions budgets of air quality maintenance plans. The forecasted VMT from the subarea is only a small fraction of the Puget Sound regional totals. Future emissions from increased population and motor vehicles in the subarea would not cause significant regional air quality impacts. Planned Action Ordinance 10 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Air Quality Attainment Status Land use density and population would increase in the Planned Action Study Area; however, these increases represent only a small fraction of the Puget Sound regional totals. Furthermore, this alternative would not result in land use changes that include unusual industrial developments. Therefore, development in the Planned Action Study Area would not cause a substantial increase in air quality concentrations that would result in a change in air quality attainment status. Same as Planned Action Study Area. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Study Area and Subarea Planned Action alternatives are estimated to result in this alternative would result in an estimated 43,050 to 45,766 metric tons/year of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the Planned Action Study Area. Planned Action Alternatives would result in an estimated 3,760 to 6,612 metric tons/year of GHG emissions. Outdoor Air Toxics The Planned Action Study Area is in a mixed-use residential and commercial zone that does not include unusual sources of toxic air pollutants. The major arterial street through the Planned Action Study Area (NE Sunset Boulevard) does not carry an unusually high percentage of heavy-duty truck traffic. Thus, the Planned Action Alternatives would not expose existing or future residents to disproportionately high concentrations of toxic air pollutants generated by local emission sources. Impacts on outdoor air toxics would be similar to those described for the Planned Action Study Area. Indoor Air Toxics See Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea RHA development would be constructed according to local building codes that require adequate insulation and ventilation. Regardless, studies have shown that residents at lower-income developments often suffer higher rates of respiratory ailments than the general public. Therefore, the City and RHA will explore measures to improve indoor air quality beyond what is normally Planned Action Ordinance 11 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea achieved by simply complying with building codes. Indirect and Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Subarea, Study Area, and Region With the highest level of transit-oriented development in the study area of the studied alternatives, Planned Action Alternatives would provide the greatest regional GHG emission reductions, a net reduction of 3,907-4,164 metric tons/year, compared with the No Action Alternative studied in the EIS. With the highest level of transit-oriented development in the subarea of the alternatives studied, Planned Action Alternatives would provide the greatest reduction in regional GHG emissions, a net reduction of 150-467 metric tons/year, compared with the No Action Alternative studied in the EIS. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts on regional or local air quality are anticipated. Temporary, localized dust and odor impacts could occur during the construction activities. The regulations and mitigation measures described below are adequate to mitigate any adverse impacts anticipated to occur as a result of study area growth increases. Mitigation Measures Table 5. Air Quality Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Emission Control The City shall require all construction contractors to implement air quality control plans for construction activities in the study area. The air quality control plans shall include BMPs to control fugitive dust and odors emitted by diesel construction equipment. The following BMPs shall 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. In addition to the mitigation measures for air quality described under the Planned Action Study Area, the following mitigation measures apply:  Should the phases of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea occur concurrently rather than in a phased and sequential manner, the City and RHA will consider adding the Northeast Diesel Collaborative Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects – Model Contract Specifications or an equivalent approach 2  The City and RHA and other public or private applicants within the subarea should explore measures to improve indoor air quality beyond what is normally achieved by simply complying with building codes. For example, grant programs such as the Breath Easy Homes program could provide funding to foster construction methods that reduce dust, mold, as additional mitigation measures. 2 Northeast Diesel Collaborative. December 2010. Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, Model Contract Specification. Available: <http://www.northeastdiesel.org/pdf/NEDC-Construction-Contract-Spec.pdf.> Accessed: March 14, 2011. Planned Action Ordinance 12 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The following mitigation measures shall 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. Where feasible, Applicants shall schedule haul traffic during off-peak times (e.g., between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.) to have the least effect on traffic and to minimize indirect increases in traffic related emissions. This shall be determined as part of traffic control plans required in Section 14 of this mitigation document. Burning of slash or demolition debris shall not be permitted without express approval from Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA). No slash burning is anticipated for any construction projects in the Planned Action Study Area. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Please see text and Table 6 below. and air toxics concentrations in the homes, such as the following:  use of low-VOC [volatile organic compounds] building materials and coatings,  enhanced building ventilation and room air filtration, and  installation of dust-free floor materials and low-pile carpeting to reduce dust buildup.  Planned Action applicants for residential developments shall provide information regarding the feasibility and applicability of indoor air quality measures. The City may condition Planned Action applications to incorporate feasible indoor air quality measures. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures The City shall require development applicants to consider the reduction measures shown in Table 6 for their projects, and as part of their application explain what reduction measures are included and why other measures found in the table are not included or are not applicable. The City may condition Planned Action applications to incorporate feasible GHG reduction measures. Table 6. Potential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Reduction Measures Comments Site Design Plant trees and vegetation near structures to shade buildings. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity, and enhances carbon sinks. Minimize building footprint. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity consumption, materials used, maintenance, land disturbance, and direct construction emissions. Design water efficient landscaping. Minimizes water consumption, purchased energy, and upstream emissions from water management. Minimize energy use through building orientation. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity consumption. Building Design and Operations Construct buildings according to City of Seattle energy code. The City of Seattle code is more stringent than the current City of Renton building code. Planned Action Ordinance 13 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Reduction Measures Comments Apply Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards (or equivalent) for design and operations. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and off-site/indirect purchased electricity, water use, waste disposal. Purchase Energy Star equipment and appliances for public agency use. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity consumption. Incorporate on-site renewable energy production, including installation of photovoltaic cells or other solar options. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity consumption. Design street lights to use energy-efficient bulbs and fixtures. Reduces purchased electricity. Construct “green roofs” and use high-albedo roofing materials. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity consumption. Install high-efficiency heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems. Minimizes fuel combustion and purchased electricity consumption. Eliminate or reduce use of refrigerants in HVAC systems. Reduces fugitive emissions. Compare refrigerant usage before/after to determine GHG reduction. Maximize interior day lighting through floor plates, increased building perimeter and use of skylights, celestories, and light wells. Increases natural/day lighting initiatives and reduces purchased electrical energy consumption. Incorporate energy efficiency technology such as super insulation motion sensors for lighting and climate-control-efficient, directed exterior lighting. Reduces fuel combustion and purchased electricity consumption. Use water-conserving fixtures that surpass building code requirements. Reduces water consumption. Reuse gray water and/or collect and reuse rainwater. Reduces water consumption with its indirect upstream electricity requirements. Use recycled building materials and products. Reduces extraction of purchased materials, possibly reduces transportation of materials, encourages recycling and reduction of solid waste disposal. Use building materials that are extracted and/or manufactured within the region. Reduces transportation of purchased materials. Use rapidly renewable building materials. Reduces emissions from extraction of purchased materials. Conduct third-party building commissioning to ensure energy performance. Reduces fuel combustion and purchased electricity consumption. Track energy performance of building and develop strategy to maintain efficiency. Reduces fuel combustion and purchased electricity consumption. Transportation Size parking capacity to not exceed local parking requirements and, where possible, seek reductions in parking supply through special permits or waivers. Reduced parking discourages auto-dependent travel, encouraging alternative modes such as transit, walking, and biking. Reduces direct and indirect VMT. Develop and implement a marketing/information program that includes posting and distribution of ridesharing/transit information. Reduces direct and indirect VMT. Planned Action Ordinance 14 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Reduction Measures Comments Subsidize transit passes. Reduce employee trips during peak periods through alternative work schedules, telecommuting, and/or flex time. Provide a guaranteed-ride-home program. Reduces employee VMT. Provide bicycle storage and showers/changing rooms. Reduces employee VMT. Use traffic signalization and coordination to improve traffic flow and support pedestrian and bicycle safety. Reduces transportation emissions and VMT. Apply advanced technology systems and management strategies to improve operational efficiency of local streets. Reduces emissions from transportation by minimizing idling and maximizing transportation routes/systems for fuel efficiency. Develop shuttle systems around business district parking garages to reduce congestion and create shorter commutes. Reduces idling fuel emissions and direct and indirect VMT. Source: Washington State Department of Ecology 2008b VMT = vehicle miles travelled. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations – General RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations 3. Water Resources Significant Impacts Table 7. Water Resources Significant Impacts Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Construction impacts on water resources would be addressed through compliance with Core Requirement #5 for Erosion and Sediment Control in the Renton Stormwater Manual and compliance with Ecology’s NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit, if the project results in 1 acre or more of land-disturbing activity. Also see Section 1, Earth, above. Same as Planned Action Study Area Operations Water Quality and Land Implementation of the green All untreated pollution-generating Planned Action Ordinance 15 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Cover connections and the NE Sunset Boulevard reconstruction project is estimated to result in a net reduction of approximately 14.7-15.7 acres of untreated pollution-generating impervious area and approximately 3.1-6.6 acres of effective impervious area. impervious surfaces within the subarea would be eliminated, resulting in a reduction of 1.83 acres of untreated pollution-generating surface from the Johns Creek Basin. The estimated change in effective impervious area would result in a decrease of approximately 0.51 acre (11%) to 1.07 acres (23%) compared to existing conditions. Indirect and Cumulative The operations analysis above presents cumulative impacts in terms of total impervious surfaces and potential water quantity and quality impacts, as well as indirect impacts on receiving water bodies outside of the study area. The Planned Action Alternatives would implement a drainage master plan and mitigation would be provided in advance through the self-mitigating public stormwater infrastructure features including a combination of green connections, regional stormwater flow control, and possible public-private partnership opportunities for retrofits. Same as the Planned Action Study area. In particular, the City proposes to construct a regional stormwater facility that would be designed to maintain active and open recreation space allowing water to be treated within a series of distributed of small integrated rain gardens along the edge of the proposed Sunset Terrace Park and connecting the subsurface to an underground infiltration bed beneath open space. This will mitigate impacts in the subarea as well as portions of the larger Planned Action Study Area. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None of the alternatives would have significant unavoidable adverse impacts on water resources, because the redevelopment would likely result in an improvement of runoff and recharge water quality. In addition, the net change in effective impervious area can be adequately mitigated through the self-mitigating features of the Planned Action alternatives and through implementation of the stormwater code, as described below. Mitigation Measures All of the alternatives would involve redevelopment and reduction of existing pollution-generating impervious surfaces in the Planned Action Study Area. In addition, per the requirements of the stormwater code, the redeveloped properties would be required to provide water quality treatment for all remaining pollution-generating impervious surfaces. The net reduction in untreated pollution-generating impervious surfaces throughout the study area is, therefore, considered to result in a net benefit to surface water quality. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are proposed. Each of the alternatives would result in a slight increase in the effective impervious area of the Planned Action Study Area. Planned Action Ordinance 16 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Self mitigating features of the Planned Action Alternatives are listed below:  Under Alternative 3, mitigation would be provided in advance or incrementally through the self-mitigating public stormwater infrastructure features including a combination of green connections, regional stormwater flow control, and possible public-private partnership opportunities for retrofits. Conceptual design and planning of the public stormwater infrastructure would be developed under a drainage master plan for the Study Area. It could be developed in advance of (likely through grants or city funds) or incrementally as development occurs depending on opportunity costs of constructing the improvements. The extent and form of the public infrastructure projects would be refined through the drainage master plan development and further design. The goal under Alternative 3 would be to provide sufficient advance public infrastructure improvements to balance the anticipated increase in effective impervious area. This strategy would only require that future developments implement flow-control BMPs, but could eliminate on-site flow control through a development fee or similar funding structure to compensate for the off-site mitigation provided by the public infrastructure investment.  The Preferred Alternative mitigation would be similar to Alternative 3. Harrington Avenue NE, including portions of NE 16th and NE 9th streets, has been identified as a high priority Green Connection project. This corridor would be enhanced by narrowing through-traffic lanes to calm traffic, create wide planter areas to accommodate large trees and rain gardens to mitigate stormwater runoff, and create wider sidewalks. This project would be implemented as a public infrastructure retrofit project pending available funds. The remaining green connections projects would likely be implemented as revised roadway standards to require incremental redevelopment of the frontage as redevelopment occurs (constructed either by future developers or the City, depending on availability of funds). In addition to the Green Connections projects, the City will implement regional detention/retention improvements to provide advance mitigation for future increases in impervious area that could result from redevelopment. Locations of the regional facilities would include the western margin of the newly created park at Sunset Terrace and/or the northern corner of Highlands Park (beyond the outfield of the existing baseball/softball field). A drainage master plan will be developed for the Preferred Alternative. Planned Actions shall implement the City’s adopted drainage master plan and be consistent with the City stormwater regulations in effect at the time of application. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations – General RMC 4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards Planned Action Ordinance 17 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document 4. Plants and Animals Significant Impacts Table 8. Plants and Animals Significant Impacts Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Individual redevelopment projects would result in short-term loss of vegetation cover, along with noise and activity levels that would result in little or no use of the construction areas by wildlife during the period of construction. Redevelopment actions would be required to comply, during construction, with City regulations requiring temporary erosion and sedimentation controls to prevent water quality impacts from work site stormwater runoff. Same as Planned Action Study Area Operations Redevelopment activities that would be facilitated under the planned action ordinance would have a limited effect on plant or wildlife habitat in the Planned Action Study Area. New development being designed as Low Impact Development (LID) is likely to result in a measurable decline in total vegetated area, accompanied by a measurable improvement in plant diversity and quality of the remaining habitat. Green connections and urban forestry plans offset to some degree by greater redevelopment, the net result is likely to be a reduction in habitat connectivity and a decline in total vegetated area, albeit with some improvement in plant diversity and quality of the remaining habitat. Largely due to the absence of impacts on special-status species, effects on wildlife would be less than significant. Same as Planned Action Study Area Indirect Planned Action Alternatives Same as Planned Action Study Area Planned Action Ordinance 18 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would result in an indirect impact on plants and wildlife by contributing to a substantial increase in the human population within the area. This can be expected to result in effects such as increased wildlife mortality due to road kill and predation by pets, and reduced wildlife diversity due to increases in opportunistic species such as starlings, crows, and rats. These indirect impacts can be expected to result in reduced numbers, vigor, and diversity of plant and wildlife species. The stormwater commitments incorporated in Planned Action Alternatives would be sufficient to avoid substantial impacts on aquatic habitats and fish. Cumulative No impact No impact Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would occur for plants and animals under any alternative. Mitigation Measures With implementation of proposed stormwater features or standards, no mitigation is required. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations – General RMC 4-4-130 Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations Planned Action Ordinance 19 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document 5. Energy Significant Impacts Table 9. Energy Significant Impacts Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction During construction, energy would be consumed by demolition and reconstruction activities. These activities would include the manufacture of construction materials, transport of construction materials to and from the construction site, and operation of machinery during demolition and construction. Same as Planned Action Study Area Operations Energy Usage: Study Area and Subarea The annual energy usage is estimated at 255,845 to 275,529 million British thermal units (Btu). The annual energy usage is estimated at 21,338 to 43,654 million British thermal units (Btu). Indirect and Cumulative Energy Usage: Subarea, Study Area, and Region With high levels of transit-oriented and high-density development the Planned Action Alternatives would provide the greatest estimated regional energy usage reduction for the study area compared to the No Action Alternative: 26,383 to 29,194 million Btu. With high levels of transit-oriented and high-density development the Planned Action Alternatives would provide the greatest estimated regional energy usage reduction for the subarea compared to the No Action Alternative: 1,145 to 3,624 million Btu. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Additional energy would be consumed and would contribute to increases in demand associated with the growth and development of the region. As described in the Utilities Element of the City Comprehensive Plan, it is anticipated that existing and planned infrastructure of affected energy utilities could accommodate growth. Energy conservation features would be incorporated into building design as required by the current City building codes. For the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, HUD encourages public housing authorities such as RHA to use Energy Star, renewable energy, and green construction practices in public housing. As such, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts on energy use are anticipated. Planned Action Ordinance 20 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Mitigation Measures Table 10. Energy Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Although the growth and development would result in increased energy demand in the Planned Action Study Area under all of the alternatives, expanding the beneficial transit-oriented development and high-density housing development within the study area would reduce regional energy usage. Therefore, all alternatives would provide a net benefit rather than adverse impact with regards to energy usage. However, to further reduce energy consumption, the City shall encourage future developers to implement additional trip-reduction measures and energy conservation measures. For example, energy and GHG reductions can be achieved through implementation of the following energy conservation techniques or equivalent approaches.  An energy reduction of 12% can be achieved by implementing sufficient strategies established by the Northwest Energy Star Homes program for multifamily residential buildings. The Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes program (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010) is designed to help builders construct energy-efficient homes in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana to meet energy-efficiency guidelines set forth by the EPA.  An energy reduction of 10% would comply with Seattle Energy Code for non-residential buildings. See also Air Quality mitigation measures. The City shall require development applicants to consider trip-reduction measures and energy conservation, and as part of their application explain what reduction measures are included and which ones are not included (based on that are part of Table 6 or Table 10). The City may condition Planned Action applications to incorporate feasible trip reduction and energy conservation measures. In addition to the mitigation measures described for the Planned Action Study Area, according to the King County proposed GHG reduction regulation, energy reductions can be provided with the implementation of the following basic requirements of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Advanced Buildings Core Performance Guide for residential and non-residential building in the subarea:  30% energy reduction for residential dwelling that are 50% of average size; and 15% energy reduction for residential dwelling that are 75% of average size; and  12% energy reduction for office, school, retail, and public assembly buildings that are smaller than 100,000 square feet in floor area. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Planned Action Ordinance 21 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document RMC 4-5-051 Washington State Energy Code Adopted 6. Noise Significant Impacts Table 11. Noise Significant Impacts Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Development in the study area would require demolition and construction activity, which would temporarily increase noise levels at residences close to the development site. This type of activity could cause annoyance and speech interference at outdoor locations adjacent to the construction sites, and could cause discernible noise. Same as Planned Action Study Area Operations Noise from New Commercial Operations Unless properly controlled, mechanical equipment (e.g., rooftop air conditioning units) and trucks at loading docks of office and retail buildings in the study area could cause ambient noise levels at nearby residential housing units to exceed the City noise ordinance limits. Same as Planned Action Study Area Indirect and Cumulative Noise from Increased Traffic: Proposal with Future Traffic Levels For most residents adjacent to roadways in the study area, increased traffic would result in the greatest increase in ambient noise levels, caused by moving traffic and vehicles idling at intersections. Development would result in noise increase from vehicles traveling on NE Sunset Boulevard and local streets. Development would result in noise increase from vehicles traveling on NE Sunset Boulevard and local streets The estimated day-night noise levels from NE Sunset Boulevard at the adjacent buildings indicates they would be exposed to “normally unacceptable” noise levels exceeding U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) outdoor day-night noise criterion of 65 dBA. The noise levels at these first row residential dwellings currently exceed the HUD noise criterion and would continue to exceed Planned Action Ordinance 22 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea the criterion under Planned Action Alternatives. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse construction or operational traffic noise impacts are anticipated in the Planned Action Study Area with the implementation of mitigation measures noted below. No significant unavoidable adverse traffic noise impacts are anticipated at residences along NE Sunset Boulevard in the Planned Action Study Area per WSDOT criteria, because the noise increase caused by NE Sunset Boulevard traffic is less than the WSDOT “substantial increase” impact threshold. Portions of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, even under existing conditions and the No Action Alternative, would be deemed normally unacceptable under the HUD noise criteria without implementation of noise attenuation mitigation, due to traffic noise from the adjacent street (NE Sunset Boulevard). No significant unavoidable adverse noise impacts are anticipated in this subarea, if the noise control measures noted below are implemented to reduce anticipated future traffic noise to levels suitable for residential uses under the HUD criteria. Mitigation Measures Table 12. Noise Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Noise To reduce construction noise at nearby receivers, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated by Planned Action applicants into construction plans and contractor specifications.  Locate stationary equipment away from receiving properties.  Erect portable noise barriers around loud stationary equipment located near sensitive receivers.  Limit construction activities to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. to avoid sensitive nighttime hours.  Turn off idling construction equipment.  Require contractors to rigorously maintain all equipment.  Train construction crews to avoid unnecessarily loud actions (e.g., dropping bundles of rebar onto the ground or dragging steel plates across pavement) near noise-sensitive areas. New Commercial Operation Noise The City shall require all prospective future Mitigation measures described in the Planned Action Study Area would also apply to this subarea. Site design approaches shall be incorporated to reduce potential noise impacts including the following.  Concentrating park and open space uses are away from NE Sunset Boulevard.  Where park and open space uses must be located near NE Sunset Boulevard, avoiding activities that require easily understood conversation (e.g., instructional classes), or other uses where quiet conditions are required for the primary function of the activity.  Allowing for balconies on exterior facing units only if they do not open to a bedroom. According to HUD noise guidebook, noise attenuation from various building materials are calculated using sound transmission class (STC) rating. Although the standard construction approaches can normally achieve the STC rating of more than 24 dBA as demonstrated in Final EIS Appendix E, the City shall require a STC rating of 30 dBA reduction for these first row residential Planned Action Ordinance 23 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea developers to use low-noise mechanical equipment adequate to ensure compliance with the City’s daytime and nighttime noise ordinance limits where commercial uses are abutting residential uses and where there is a potential to exceed noise ordinance limits. Depending on the nature of the proposed development, the City shall require the developer to conduct a noise impact study to forecast future noise levels and to specify appropriate noise control measures. Compliance with the noise ordinance would ensure this potential impact would not be significant. Traffic Noise Mitigation Although traffic noise is exempt from City noise ordinance, based on site-specific considerations, the City may at its discretion require the new development to install double-pane glass windows or other building insulation measures using its authority under the Washington State Energy Code (RMC 4-5-040). dwellings because the HUD noise guidebook shows that the sound reduction achieved by different techniques may be a little optimistic 3 Nexus . . City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations – General RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations RMC Title 8 Chapter 7 Noise Level Regulations 7. Environmental Health Significant Impacts Table 13. Environmental Health Impacts Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Potential construction impacts include releasing existing contaminants to the environment by ground-disturbing or dewatering activities, encountering underground storage tanks (USTs) or leaking USTs, generating hazardous building materials that require Existing subsurface contaminations have not been identified on the redevelopable properties and, therefore, are not expected to be encountered during construction. Hazardous building materials such as lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) 3 HUD noise guidebook, Chapter 4, page 33”… use the STC ratings with a bit of caution and remain aware of the possible 2-3 dB overstating that you may get with the STC rating system.” Planned Action Ordinance 24 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea special disposal, and accidentally releasing hazardous substances. could be generated from demolition of the existing Sunset Terrace buildings. If there are lead-based paints or ACMs at the complex, appropriate permits and precautions would be required. Accidental release of hazardous substances during construction could still occur as in all construction projects. Operations If development occurs on contaminated sites, where appropriate clean-up measures were not completed or residual contaminations were present, then there is a potential risk to public health for people using the site. No impact Indirect No impact No impact Cumulative No impact No impact Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are identified at the programmatic level throughout the Planned Study Area or for the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea for any of the studied alternatives. Contaminated sites would be avoided during project design when possible; implementing the mitigation approaches described below would minimize or eliminate adverse effects on human health and the environment. Mitigation Measures Table 14. Environmental Health Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea  Since encountering unreported spills or unreported underground fuel tanks is a risk when performing construction, contractors shall be required to provide hazardous materials awareness training to all grading and excavation crews on how to identify any suspected contaminated soil or groundwater, and how to alert supervisors in the event of suspected contaminated material. Signs of potential contaminated soil include stained soil, odors, oily sheen, or the presence of debris.  Contractors shall be required to implement a contingency plan to identify, segregate, and dispose of hazardous waste in full The construction and operation mitigation measures identified for the Planned Action Study Area are applicable to the subarea. Planned Action Ordinance 25 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea accordance with the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA)(WAC 173-340) and the Dangerous Waste (WAC 173-303) regulations.  Contractors shall be required to develop and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, BMPs, and other permit conditions to minimize the potential for a release of hazardous materials to soil, groundwater, or surface water during construction.  Contractors shall be required to follow careful construction practices to protect against hazardous materials spills from routine equipment operation during construction; prepare and maintain a current spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan, and have an individual on site designated as an emergency coordinator; and understand and use proper hazardous materials storage and handling procedures and emergency procedures, including proper spill notification and response requirements.  All asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint will be identified in structures prior to demolition activities in accordance with 24 CFR Part 35. If ACM or lead-based paint is identified, appropriately trained and licensed personnel will contain, remove, and properly dispose of the ACM and/or lead-based paint material according to federal and state regulations prior to demolition of the affected area.  If warranted, contractors shall conduct additional studies to locate undocumented underground storage tank (USTs) and fuel lines before construction of specific development projects (areas of concern include current and former commercial and residential structures) and will permanently decommission and properly remove USTs from project sites before commencing general construction activities.  Prior to acquisition of known or potentially contaminated property, the City shall require appropriate due diligence be performed to identify the presence and extent of soil or groundwater Planned Action Ordinance 26 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea contamination. This can help to prevent or manage liabilities for any long-term clean-up activities that might be ongoing during project operations. If contamination is discovered, the project proponent will comply with all state and federal regulations for contaminated sites. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations – General RMC Title 4 Chapter 5 Building and Fire Prevention Standards 8. Land Use Significant Impacts Table 15. Land Use Impacts Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction The incremental nature of development over the planning period would minimize the number of nearby residents exposed to temporary construction impacts including dust emissions, noise, construction traffic, and sporadic interference with access to adjacent residences and businesses. Same as Planned Action Study Area Operations Land Use Patterns Planned Action Alternatives would provide more than 2,300 to 2,500 dwelling units and 1.2 to 1.3 million square feet of commercial space compared to existing conditions. Redevelopment would provide more commercial development than residential development. This alternative would also provide more than two times as many residential dwellings as currently exist in the study area. Planned Action Alternatives would provide about 266-479 more dwelling units than existing conditions in a mixed-use development that integrates commercial and civic spaces. Plans and Policies Planned Action Alternatives provide the greatest degree of Planned Action Alternatives provide the greatest degree of Planned Action Ordinance 27 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea consistency among the alternatives with the City Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, and policies by implementing the development types envisioned in the City’s land use and zoning designations within the study area. Anticipated growth would help the City meet its 2031 housing and employment targets. Public investments would need to be accounted for in amendments to the City’s Transportation and Capital Facilities elements. consistency with the City’s land use element goals and policies of all alternatives by promoting the redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community. It also does more than other alternatives to develop the Center Village. Development in the subarea under this alternative has a similar consistency as the study area for other City goals and policies, providing a greater degree of consistency with those goals and policies than other alternatives. Indirect and Cumulative No indirect or cumulative land use impacts are anticipated outside the study area. The City applies its policies and development regulations to create a planned land use pattern. Density is most intense at the center of the study area and least along its boundaries with single-family residential land use patterns; it is unlikely to alter patterns or plans along the edges of the study area. The City will, as part of its regular comprehensive plan review and amendment updates, control the monitoring, evaluation, and amendment process. Redevelopment of the subarea under this alternative would serve as an incentive for other redevelopment opportunities near the study area. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Although intensification of land uses in the Planned Action Study Area, including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, would occur and density would increase, this change would be consistent with applicable plans, zoning, and land use character. Plan consistency can be addressed by Comprehensive Plan amendments using the City’s legislative process. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse impacts. Mitigation Measures Table 16. Land Use Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Under all alternatives, the City shall require planned action applicants to implement appropriate construction mitigation measures, including but not limited to dust control and Construction mitigation would be the same as described under the Planned Action Study Area. The City and RHA should coordinate on future Planned Action Ordinance 28 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea construction traffic management. The City should make efforts to minimize property acquisition that affects buildings as part of its refinement of study area streetscape designs while balancing Complete Streets principles. As part of the Planned Action Ordinance adoption process, the City should amend its Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation and Capital Facilities elements to ensure that planned public investments and their funding sources are accounted for and programmed. Sunset Terrace redevelopment and Planned Action Study Area streetscape improvements to ensure that property acquisition that affects buildings is minimized. The City shall require construction plans to:  Locate the majority of the most intensive non-residential development along or near NE Sunset Boulevard, where possible.  Implement proposed open space and landscape features to offset the proposed intensification of land uses on the site.  Provide new opportunities for public open space area.  As part of site design, emphasize transitions in density, with less intense densities where abutting lower-intensity zones. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC Title 4 Chapter 2 Zoning Districts – Uses and Standards 9. Socioeconomics Significant Impacts Table 17. Socioeconomics Impacts Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Construction activities could temporarily increase congestion and reduce parking, local access for businesses and residents, and access near the construction activities, which could negatively affect businesses; however, businesses located close to construction activities could experience an increase in revenue from spending by construction workers. The demolition of the Sunset Terrace complex to allow for the subarea redevelopment would require the relocation of the tenants. Moreover, the relocation of the tenants could affect some local businesses during construction, if the tenants are relocated outside of the immediate area; however, since the total number of relocations represents a small portion of the overall population any impact would likely be small in scale. Operations The higher number of dwelling units and jobs would result in greater intensities in development The Planned Action Alternatives would increase dwelling units and jobs by 266-479 net dwelling Planned Action Ordinance 29 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and economic benefits. Improvements in the streetscape along NE Sunset Boulevard and the other civic and infrastructure improvements would make the study area more desirable to investment, which could lead to additional opportunities for employment as more businesses are attracted to the study area. The facilities that would be added under Alternative 3 include a family village and a wider reconstruction of NE Sunset Boulevard. The family village would include housing, education, recreation, and supportive services that would be designed to promote a healthy and walkable neighborhood. units and 79- 117 jobs. The subarea would be developed with new park, street, and civic improvements that would promote a healthy and walkable neighborhood. Indirect Construction spending would result in positive indirect effects on the economic elements of employment and income in the study area and the regional economy as businesses that support the construction effort would likely see increased spending. The additional public and private investment and associated economic benefits would be greater due to the increased spending. Increased spending is anticipated with the mixture of affordable and market-rate units, which would result in positive impacts on the businesses in the area as well as local tax revenues. Cumulative Cumulative effects would be positive with the addition of new development that would continue to enhance the area and continue to improve the neighborhood vitality. As the area changes and new housing is provided, no existing public units would be lost and improvements in the neighborhood would likely continue as new developments are constructed. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No long-term significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Planned Action alternatives would encourage new development in the both the Planned Action Study Area and the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea that would result in beneficial changes to the socioeconomic conditions. Under Planned Action Alternatives, relocation of the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would result in short-term impacts; however, these impacts would be mitigated. The creation of new jobs Planned Action Ordinance 30 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document and spending in the subarea during construction of new developments would result in short-term benefits. Mitigation Measures Table 18. Socioeconomics Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Mitigation measures to minimize dust, noise, aesthetics, and transportation impacts during construction are identified in Sections 2, 6, 12, and 14, respectively, of this Mitigation Document. These measures would address many of the construction-related impacts that could negatively affect the study area businesses. In addition, with the reconstruction of NE Sunset Boulevard, or with any new development, if access to businesses is affected, the following measures should be addressed by the City or WSDOT:  Provide detour, open for business, and other signage, as appropriate.  Provide business cleaning services on a case-by-case basis, as needed.  Establish promotions or marketing measures to help affected businesses maintain their customer base during construction.  Maintain access, as much as possible, to each business and, if access needs to be limited, coordinate with the affected businesses. Mitigation measures to address indirect impacts on housing affordability are addressed in Section 10 of this Mitigation Document. In addition to mitigation measures described for the Planned Action Study Area, the following mitigation measures apply:  Public housing tenants shall be provided relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation Act.  RHA should consider phased demolition and reconstruction to minimize the need to relocate all the residents at the same time, or the new affordable housing development could be constructed prior to demolition to provide opportunities to relocate tenants within the subarea. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan 10. Housing Significant Impacts Table 19. Housing Impacts Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Construction of commercial, residential, and civic uses in the study area would create temporary noise, dust, and Construction of residential and civic uses would create temporary noise, dust, and construction traffic, which would affect Planned Action Ordinance 31 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea construction traffic, which would affect current residents. adjacent residents to the subject properties. Operations The Planned Action Alternatives assume 40% of the study area acreage would infill or redevelop. This would result in the greatest number of dwellings replaced at 299. The Planned Action Alternatives would add up to approximately 2,339 to 2,507 new dwellings. In the study area there is a potential for additional market rate dwellings as well as affordable and public dwellings. Most new units would be multifamily. In this subarea, 110 public housing and duplex dwellings would be eliminated. There would be a 1:1 replacement of public housing units on site and in the Planned Action Study Area. The number of units added would be 266-479 above existing dwellings, for a total of 376-589 units. About three quarters of the units would be affordable or public, and another approximate quarter would be market-rate dwelling units. Indirect Increased housing could increase local resident spending at businesses in the study area, and could also create an increased demand for parks and recreation, public services, and utilities. The potential for residents to help support local businesses as well as to create a demand for services is similar to the Planned Action Study Area. Cumulative Growth in the study area would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and would contribute to meeting growth targets for the City’s next Comprehensive Plan Update for the year 2031. The support of the new dwellings to assist the City in meeting growth targets is similar to the Planned Action Study Area. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Housing in the Planned Action Study Area would likely redevelop to some degree to take advantage of adopted plans and zoning. However, the alternatives would allow for the construction of new dwelling units to replace those that are eliminated. Lower-cost housing could be replaced with more costly housing. Implementation of City regulatory incentives and use of federal, state, and local housing funds and programs could reduce potential affordability impacts. Through its regular Comprehensive Plan review cycles, the City could monitor housing trends in the neighborhood and adapt measures to promote affordability. During construction and in the short-term, residents would be subject to construction activities and the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would be required to relocate during demolition and construction. However, relocation assistance mitigation measures for RHA units would mitigate impacts. Planned Action Ordinance 32 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Mitigation Measures Table 20. Housing Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-4-030(C) identifies construction hours intended to address noise in sensitive time periods. See Section 6, Noise, of this Mitigation Document regarding other noise mitigation measures for construction periods. When federal funds are being used for a proposal, displaced tenants shall be offered relocation assistance in compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended. The City and RHA should apply for federal, state, and local funding programs described in Draft EIS Section 3.10, Housing, to promote new housing opportunities for low and very low-income housing. RHA should establish a local preference for rental assistance. For example, RHA could establish a priority list for Section 8 vouchers for displaced low-income tenants in the Planned Action Study Area (in addition to the relocation assistance to be provided by RHA to the Sunset Terrace residents). Unit replacement and relocation assistance for the family village would be the same as described for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Construction mitigation would be as described for the Planned Action Study Area. RHA has committed to replacement housing for the Sunset Terrace public housing units at a 1:1 ratio, consistent with the existing proportion of units by number of bedrooms. Such replacement housing could occur on site and/or off site. During the time replacement housing is under construction, Section 8 vouchers, or equivalent measures, shall be used to relocate tenants. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC Title 4 Chapter 2 Zoning Districts – Uses and Standards RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations – General 11. Environmental Justice Significant Impacts Table 21. Environmental Justice Impacts Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Residents near construction activities would likely be affected by temporary noise, dust, and visual impacts due to The demolition of the Sunset Terrace complex and construction of the proposed conceptual plans would require the relocation of Planned Action Ordinance 33 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea construction; these impacts would be short-term in nature. The population of the study area is predominately non-minority and non-low-income and any negative impacts would likely occur on these populations to a greater degree than the minority and low-income populations. the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex likely through Section 8 vouchers. Because the tenants are low-income and predominately minority, this would constitute a greater impact on these populations than other populations. Operations Residential, commercial, and recreational development and civic and infrastructure improvements under Planned Action Alternatives would improve the overall neighborhood, making it a more cohesive and desirable place to live for all populations in the community, including minority and low-income populations. The family village would be beneficial for all populations in the Planned Action Study Area, but these benefits could accrue to a greater degree for minority and low-income populations due to the close proximity, especially for those without access to a vehicle. Planned Action Alternatives would have a number of beneficial effects on minority and low-income populations in the subarea, including the redevelopment of the existing dwelling units, construction of additional units, transportation improvements, and the addition of other community facilities (i.e., senior day health, library, parks). These changes would result in improvements to public health and to the aesthetics of the area. These would all improve community cohesion for subarea residents. Indirect The introduction of new retail and commercial space within the study area would increase employment opportunities. These opportunities would benefit all study area populations, but could benefit minority and low-income populations to a greater degree. The Planned Action Alternatives would increase the variety of residential unit types and affordability levels would reduce the concentration of low-income households in the subarea, and thereby reduce or eliminate some of the social consequences of such concentrations. Housing types and affordability would be more varied. New retail and commercial space wand provide new employment opportunities could be seen as more beneficial to subarea residents who may be unemployed or not have a their own vehicle and would, therefore, benefit more from the proximity. Cumulative Cumulative impacts would primarily be beneficial. As the area continues to redevelop with new investments, public and private, it would become more desirable for the residents and Adverse impacts are not anticipated. New dwelling units would be affordable, public, and market-rate units. The beneficial cumulative impacts identified under the Planned Action Study Planned Action Ordinance 34 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would continue to create new jobs. The new development and addition of more market-rate units could cause the study area to become less affordable to lower-income populations, which could result in these populations needing to relocate outside of the study area. Area would be similar. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There are no long-term significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to environmental justice. The Planned Action alternatives would result in primarily beneficial impacts associated with new dwelling units, new civic facilities and parks, improvements in nonmotorized transportation, and new employment opportunities in the surrounding area. During construction and in the short-term residents would be subject to construction activities and the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would be required to relocate during demolition and construction. However, construction mitigation and relocation assistance mitigation measures (for the RHA units) would minimize impacts. Mitigation Measures Table 22. Environmental Justice Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea There are no specific mitigation measures related to environmental justice during construction or operation. During construction, mitigation measures related to noise, dust, traffic congestion, and visual quality shall be applicable to all populations. These measures are described in Sections 2, 6, 12, and 14, respectively, of this Mitigation Document. Mitigation measures during construction include the need for replacement housing for the residents of Sunset Terrace. It is likely that the tenants would be relocated under a potential Section 8 voucher strategy during construction. See Section 9, Socioeconomics, of this Mitigation Document. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations – General 12. Aesthetics Significant Impacts Table 23. Aesthetic Impacts Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Ordinance 35 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction The demolition of existing structures and construction of new buildings would expose nearby residents to visual impacts, including dust, the presence of construction equipment, stockpiles of construction materials, localized increases in vehicular traffic, and on-site construction activities. For each alternative, these activities would occur sporadically at various locations throughout the Planned Action Study Area, would be localized to the construction site, and would be temporary in nature. Same as Planned Action Study Area Operations Visual Character The extensive public investment under the Planned Action Alternatives would result in widespread changes to the visual character of the Planned Action Study Area affecting about 40% of parcel acres. Private development would take full advantage of the current development regulations, resulting in a transition to a mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented neighborhood. The application of adopted design standards as new construction gradually replaces older buildings would result in an overall improvement of the visual environment in the Planned Action Study Area. The visual character of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would change from its current state to a pedestrian-oriented community with a mix of residential, ground-floor commercial, and community uses linked by public spaces and landscaped pedestrian pathways. The Preferred Alternative concept would focus less residential development in the subarea than Alternative 3, making room for a larger neighborhood park. Height and Bulk The subarea would experience moderate increases in height and bulk over existing conditions. Heights would range from two to four stories, and buildings would generally be located closer to the street than under current conditions. The tallest building heights under the Preferred Alternative would occur on property zoned Center Village. Building height and bulk within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would range from one to four stories. The Preferred Alternative, however, would provide much more park space than Alternative 3, providing a sense of openness to the Sunset Terrace site. In addition, buildings on the site would be arranged to place 2-story townhomes adjacent to the park and taller multifamily residential buildings along NE Planned Action Ordinance 36 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Sunset Boulevard. Shade and Shadow Because heights in the Planned Action Study Area would generally increase, shading effects would also become more pronounced, though only to a moderate degree. Increased building heights within the Planned Action Study Area could result in increased shading of pedestrian areas and public spaces, particularly along NE Sunset Boulevard, which is likely to see some of the most intense commercial and mixed-use development. Taller buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard would cast longer shadows on the interior of the subarea to the north, potentially shading sidewalks along Sunset Lane NE. Dependent on final design, building may potentially shade sidewalks along Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE at various times of the day. With the Preferred Alternative, the increased size of the central park, as well as the placement of 2-story townhomes adjacent to the park, reduces the potential for adverse shading effects compared to Alternative 3. Indirect/ Cumulative While redevelopment of the public facilities discussed under the various alternatives would be a coherent effort, private development throughout the study area would occur piecemeal. Individual private developments are likely to be of higher density, greater height, and a different architectural style than existing development, and have the potential to create temporary aesthetic conflicts where they are located adjacent to older structures. Over time, as more properties redevelop, the temporary conflicts would be less frequent and less noticeable. Redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace housing facility would be a localized action, but additional private development is anticipated to occur in response to this public investment, and each private development project would contribute to the overall transformation of the area’s aesthetic character. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts With the application of adopted development regulations and recommended mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Table 24. Aesthetic Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea In both the Planned Action Study Area and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, mitigation See Planned Action Study Area. Planned Action Ordinance 37 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea measures will be necessary to minimize impacts associated with increased height, bulk, and shading. Future development occurring under any of the alternatives shall conform to the Renton Municipal Code design standards, including but not limited to the following:  Urban design standards contained in RMC 4-3-100,  Residential Design and Open Space Standards contained in RMC 4-2-115, and  Lighting Standards contained in RMC 4-4-075. As described in RMC 4-3-100B3, portions of the Planned Action Study Area do not currently lie within an established Urban Design District, most notably those properties north of NE 16th Street and west of Kirkland Avenue NE, where the family village proposed under the Planned Action Alternatives would be located. To ensure that future redevelopment exhibits quality urban design, the City should consider either including this area in Design District D or creating a new design district for this purpose. Prior to the enactment of new design standards, the City may condition development north of NE 16th Street to meet appropriate standards of Design District D in RMC 4-3-100. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC Title 4 Chapter 2 Zoning Districts – Uses and Standards RMC 4-3-100 Urban Design Regulations RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On-Site 13. Historic/Cultural Significant Impacts Table 25. Historic/Cultural Impacts Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Typical project impacts that could disrupt or adversely affect cultural resources in the Planned Action Study Area include demolition, removal, or substantial alteration without No significant cultural resources are known to exist in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Planned Action Ordinance 38 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea consideration of historic and archaeological sites and/or features. Operations, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts Development could occur on or near parcels in the Planned Action Study Area that contain previously identified or unknown cultural resources. This development would likely involve ground disturbance and modifications to buildings and structures, which could result in a potentially significant impact on cultural resources. Because of the potential to impact unknown cultural resources, a detailed review of potential impacts on cultural resources would be required on a project-specific basis. Future development in the subarea would have no impact any known National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible archaeological or historic resources, and the likelihood of impacts on unknown cultural resources is considered low. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The impacts on cultural resources caused by new development associated with any alterative could be significant and unavoidable, depending on the nature and proximity of the proposed development project. Implementation of mitigation measures set forth in Draft EIS Section 4.13.2 as amended in the Final EIS would identify potential impacts on cultural resources, at which point measures to reduce them to less than significant could be taken. Mitigation Measures Table 26. Historic/Cultural Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea  In the event that a proposed development site within the study area contains a building at least 50-years of age that is not listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or Washington Heritage Register (WHR), the project shall be required to undergo review to determine if the property is considered eligible for listing.  It is recommended that the City adopt a historic preservation ordinance that considers the identification and treatment of historic resources listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP or WHR, or locally designated. Until such time an ordinance is Since no native “A” horizon was identified at the Edmonds-Glenwood site and throughout the Sunset Terrace public housing complex, no further archaeological investigations are recommended for these areas. Although a buried, native “A” horizon was identified on RHA’s Piha site (east of Harrington Avenue NE), the potential for an archaeological discovery is very low. The project should proceed with no further archaeological investigations. If archaeological materials are discovered during ground disturbing excavations, the contractor shall halt excavations in the vicinity of the find and contact DAHP. If human skeletal remains are discovered, or if during excavation archaeological materials are Planned Action Ordinance 39 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea adopted, the City must enter into consultation with DAHP regarding potential impacts on historic resources in the study area that are listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP or WHR.  For future projects that involve significant excavation in the study area the City must enter into consultation with Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) to determine the likelihood of and recommendations for addressing potential archaeological resources. It may be necessary to complete archaeological testing prior to significant excavation in the study area, such as digging for footings or utilities. Archaeological project monitoring may be recommended for subsurface excavation and construction in high probability areas.  In the event that a future development project in the study area is proposed on or immediately surrounding a site containing an archaeological resource, the potential impacts on the archaeological resource must be considered and, if needed, a study conducted by a qualified archaeologist to determine whether the project would materially impact the archaeological resource. If the project would disturb an archaeological resource, the City shall impose any and all measures to avoid or substantially lessen the impact. If avoidance of the archaeological resource is not possible, an appropriate research design must be developed and implemented with full data recovery of the archaeological resource prior to the development project. The avoidance of archaeological resources through selection of project alternatives and changes in design of project features in the specific area of the affected resource(s) would eliminate the need for measuring or mitigating impacts.  Non-site-specific mitigation could include developing an educational program, interpretive displays, and design guidelines that focus on compatible materials, and professional publications. uncovered, the proponent will immediately stop work and notify agencies as outlined in the Unanticipated Discovery Plan provided in Draft EIS Appendix J and as amended by Final EIS Chapter 4 (and provided as Attachment 1 of this Exhibit B). If the project would disturb an archaeological resource, the City shall impose any and all measures to avoid or substantially lessen the impact. If avoidance of the archaeological resource is not possible, an appropriate research design must be developed and implemented with full data recovery of the archaeological resource prior to the development project. The avoidance of archaeological resources through selection of project alternatives and changes in design of project features in the specific area of the affected resource(s) would eliminate the need for measuring or mitigating impacts. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Planned Action Ordinance 40 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document 14. Transportation Significant Impacts Table 27. Transportation Impacts Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Potential impacts that could result from construction activities include increased traffic volumes, increased delays, detour routes, and road closures. Lane closures in both directions of NE Sunset Boulevard could be required during construction roadway improvements associated with the Planned Action Alternatives. This reduction in capacity would likely increase travel times, and may force reroutes through local streets. Same as Planned Action Study Area Operations Traffic Operations At Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street LOS F conditions are predicted in both 2015 and 2030. At Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street LOS F conditions are expected in 2030. Delay times in the subarea could worsen slightly due to the increase in trips generated, but intersections would likely operate better than the LOS D threshold. Transit At both Edmonds Avenue NE and at NE 10th Street, expanded bus zones in both directions of travel would provide larger waiting areas for transit users and would be conveniently located near residential or retail land uses. Bus zones and existing bus stops could include shelters with adequate lighting and street furniture. Same as Planned Action Study Area Nonmotorized Planned Action Alternatives include improved nonmotorized facilities such as bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and marked crosswalks. Design elements such as bike route signage, bike storage lockers, and bicycle detection at signalized intersections are included to promote bike ridership and safety. The Preferred Alternative includes a 5-foot-wide eastbound Same as Planned Action Study Area Planned Action Ordinance 41 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea bicycle lane, rather than bicycle lanes in both directions (as in Alternative 3). Sidewalk connections from NE Sunset Boulevard to side streets would be improved, strengthening the connectivity between the residential areas and NE Sunset Boulevard. To improve safety for pedestrians crossing the roadways, the Preferred Alternative includes special paving at crosswalks and intersections. Sustainability The Planned Action Alternatives score a minimum of 33 with a maximum of up to 99 out of 118 points in the Greenroads metric; therefore, the alternatives meet the minimum Greenroads certification level and could achieve the highest level of certification. The Planned Action Alternatives score most strongly in the “Access and Equity” section of the Greenroads evaluation, as improving access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users are important elements of this alternative. The Planned Action Alternatives typically include higher levels of improvements or higher quality of improvements such as wider sidewalks, wider planting areas, and special paving. Same as Planned Action Study Area Indirect and Cumulative Growth would increase in comparison to Comprehensive Plan land use estimates; however, the Planned Action Alternatives’ operational analysis is based on a model that addresses growth cumulatively on the City’s current and planned roadway system and any operational deficiencies can be mitigated to meet City of Renton thresholds. Same as Planned Action Study Area Planned Action Ordinance 42 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The alternatives are expected to contribute to a cumulative increase in traffic volumes within the study area, which could degrade some roadway operations. The increase in traffic volumes due to activities in the study area is considered unavoidable, but the roadway operation and LOS can be mitigated to meet applicable LOS standards. Mitigation Measures Table 28. Transportation Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Operational Mitigation Planned Action applicants shall pay a Transportation Impact Fee as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment, payable to the City as specified in the Renton Municipal Code. Planned Action applicants shall implement transportation mitigation measures identified below when required to meet concurrency management regulations in RMC 4-6-070 Transportation Concurrency Requirements:  Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street: an additional southbound left-turn pocket and westbound right-turn pocket would improve operations to LOS E, while added pedestrian- and bicycle-oriented paths or multi-use trails to encourage mode shifts would likely improve operations to LOS D.  At the Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street intersection: the eastbound and westbound approaches could be restriped to increase the number of lanes and, therefore, the capacity of the intersection. With implementation, this intersection would improve to LOS D. Construction Mitigation Temporary mitigation during construction may be necessary to ensure safe travel and manage traffic delays. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to or during construction within the Planned Action Study Area.  Prior to construction: o Assess pavement and subsurface condition of roadways being proposed for transport of construction materials and equipment. Ensure pavement can support loads. Adequate pavement quality would likely reduce the occurrence of potholes and would help maintain travel speeds. o Alert landowners and residents of potential No permanent mitigation measures are recommended within Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. The intersection operations under action alternatives are expected to be within the LOS D threshold. During construction, mitigation measures are those described for the Planned Action Study Area. Flaggers, advance warning signage to alert motorists of detours or closures, and reduced speed zones would likely benefit traffic operations. Planned Action Ordinance 43 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea construction. Motorists may be able to adjust schedules and routes to avoid construction areas and minimize disruptions. o Develop traffic control plans for all affected roadways. Outline procedures for maintenance of traffic, develop detour plans, and identify potential reroutes. o Place advance warning signage on roadways surrounding construction locations to minimize traffic disturbances.  During construction: o Place advance warning signage on NE Sunset Boulevard and adjacent arterials to warn motorists of potential vehicles entering and exiting the roadway. Signage could include “Equipment on Road,” “Truck Access,” or “Slow Vehicles Crossing.” o Use pilot cars as dictated by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). o Encourage carpooling among construction workers to reduce traffic volume to and from the construction site. o Employ flaggers, as necessary, to direct traffic when vehicles or large equipment are entering or exiting the public road system to minimize risk of conflicts between trucks and passenger vehicles. o Maintain at least one travel lane at all times, if possible. Use flaggers to manage alternating directions of traffic. If lane closures must occur, adequate signage for potential detours or possible delays should be posted. o Revisit traffic control plans as construction occurs. Revise traffic control plans to improve mobility or address safety issues if necessary. Nexus Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards Planned Action Ordinance 44 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document 15. Parks and Recreation Significant Impacts Table 29. Parks and Recreation Impacts Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Construction could temporarily disrupt pedestrian access to existing park properties. Active construction sites also represent opportunities for creative play and attractive adventure for young people in the community. No parks and recreation facilities exist in this subarea and no construction impacts are anticipated. Operations Although there is an increase in community park acreage there would continue to be a deficiency in neighborhood and community park acreage in the Planned Action Study Area. Deficiencies are less than for the Preferred Alternative than Alternative 3 which has a similar population but less proposed park facilities. Ballfield and sport court LOS standards are applied citywide; thus a lack of such facilities within the Planned Action Study Area or the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea does not indicate an LOS deficiency. NE Sunset Boulevard would be improved to include bike lanes, intersection improvements, and sidewalks, providing a more walkable corridor and more direct access between residential areas and park land With Alternative 3, portions of Harrington Avenue NE right-of-way within the subarea would be converted to 0.25 acres of passive open space. Under the Preferred Alternative, Sunset Court Park would be relocated to the Sunset Terrace Subarea. Additionally, this park would be expanded from 0.5 acres to 2.65 acres and would have a vacation of Harrington Avenue NE similar to Alternative 3. This increases the acreage in neighborhood park land for this subarea and the Planned Action Study Area. Additionally, a library would be constructed in the subarea. Indirect Indirect impacts are expected to mostly fall on the City’s regional and communitywide parks and recreation facilities. For example, as the population increases in the Planned Action Study Area, there will be a growing deficiency of Neighborhood and Community Parks. Due to proximity, those demands would likely be displaced to nearby regional facilities such as Gene Coulon Park as well as in surrounding communities. Facility deficiencies in this subarea would also likely lead to spillover demand for active playfields for team sports in other parts of Renton as well as in surrounding communities. Planned Action Ordinance 45 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Cumulative Increased demands for park and recreation facilities and services generated by the forecast population growth under each of the alternatives would add to those created by general population growth throughout the Renton community. Same as Planned Action Study Area Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Under studied alternatives for the Planned Action Study Area and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, there would be an increased demand for parks and recreation facilities. With the application of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Table 30. Parks and Recreation Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea During construction, impacts adjacent to or in parks within the Planned Action Study Area, such as an increase in noise, dust, and access limitations, shall be mitigated as per a construction mitigation plan developed by Planned Action applicants and approved by the City. Planned Action Applicants shall pay a Parks and Recreation Impact fee as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment, payable to the City as specified by t he Renton Municipal Code. The following four mitigation measures would help improve the availability or access to parks and recreation facilities in the Planned Action Study Area.  The City is initiating a parks, recreation, open space and natural resources plan for completion in 2011. That plan could identify alternative LOS standards and parks and recreation opportunities inside or outside of the Planned Action Study Area that could serve the local population.  The City is considering amendments to its development codes that would provide for payment of a fee-in-lieu for required common open space. As proposed, the fee-in-lieu option could be executed when development sites are located within 0.25 mile of a public park and when that park can be safely With the prevalence of public facilities in the Planned Action Study Area as a whole, and the addition of a central park and a library in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, there is opportunity to manage the current facilities in a manner that maximizes their beneficial parks and recreation uses for future population growth. The mitigation measures proposed for the Planned Action Study Area shall apply to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Planned Action Ordinance 46 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea accessed by pedestrians. The City’s package of amendments also includes park impact fees.  The City and Renton School District could develop a joint-use agreement for public use of school grounds for parks and recreation purposes during non-school hours. Joint-use agreements between the City and Renton School District could also be used to, at least partially, address the LOS deficiencies in existing recreation facilities.  The City could add parks and recreation facilities such as: o The City could convert current public properties no longer needed for their current uses to parks and recreation uses, such as the Highlands Library that is intending to move and expand off site. Draft EIS Figure 4.15-2 shows properties in public use. o The City could purchase private property for parks and recreation use. An efficient means would be to consider properties in the vicinity of existing parks and recreation facilities or where additional population growth would be greatest. Draft EIS Figure 4.15-2 shows locations where future demand could be greater and where the City could focus acquisition efforts. Nexus Renton Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan 16. Public Services Significant Impacts Table 31. Public Services Impacts Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Police The Renton Police Department could experience an increase in calls for service related to construction site theft, vandalism, or trespassing relating to Same as Planned Action Study Area Planned Action Ordinance 47 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea construction. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Construction impacts on fire protection and emergency medical services could include increased calls for service related to inspection of construction sites and potential construction-related injuries. Same as Planned Action Study Area Education The McKnight Middle School expansion would occur similar to other alternatives. In addition, changes would occur at the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center and the reconfigured Hillcrest Early Childhood Center would be part of a family village concept that would include recreation and housing. The expansion of McKnight Middle School is not expected to disrupt student attendance at the campus. No impact Health Care There may be temporary changes to nonmotorized and motorized access to health care services during infrastructure construction (e.g., NE Sunset Boulevard), but alternative routes would be established. Same as Planned Action Study Area Social Services There may be temporary changes to nonmotorized and motorized access to social services during infrastructure construction (e.g., NE Sunset Boulevard), but alternative routes would be established. Construction at the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center as part of the family village redevelopment, would require relocation of the Friendly Kitchen weekly meal program that meets at that site. The Friendly Kitchen program would either be relocated permanently as a part of the redevelopment or may be accommodated as part of the range of social services provided at the family village. Redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace housing development would displace the existing on-site community meeting space that is currently used for on-site social service programs. However, the space would be replaced onsite or nearby with a larger and more modern facility, and with appropriate phasing of development, disruption to on-site social service programs can be minimized or avoided. Solid Waste Planned Action Alternatives would result in construction-related waste generation. Same as Planned Action Study Area Planned Action Ordinance 48 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Library When the library is relocated, library services may be temporarily unavailable in the study area, but services would be available at other branches. Same as Planned Action Study Area Operations Police Applying the Renton Police Department staffing per population standard to the anticipated population increase would result in a need for an estimated 8.6 to 9.3 additional police officers to address increase in service calls related to growth. Applying the Renton Police Department standard to the anticipated population increase would account for 1.0 to1.8 of the approximately 8.6 to 9.3 additional police officers to address population growth study area. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Applying the fire service’s staffing ratio to growth in the study area would result in the need for an additional1.2 to1.3 firefighter full-time equivalents (FTEs) compared to existing conditions to maintain the City’s existing staffing ratio. Applying the fire service’s staffing ratio to growth in the study area to the population growth of in this subarea would result in the need for less than 0.14 to 0.2 of the 1.2 to1.3 firefighter FTEs needed in the overall Planned Action Study Area to maintain the City’s existing staffing ratio. Education Population growth would result in an increase in approximately 526 to 567 students in the Renton School District compared to existing conditions. The district’s planned opening of Honey Dew Elementary, as well as construction of additions to McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School, would accommodate this increase in student population. New students within the study area would include a higher than average number of students speaking English as a second language, increasing demands on the district’s English Language Learners Program. Population growth would result in approximately 60 to 107 additional students compared to existing conditions. It is anticipated that this additional increment of students would be accommodated by the district’s planned capital improvements, including opening Honey Dew Elementary, expansion of McKnight Middle School, and redeveloping the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center which would provide additional student capacity in addition to early education programs that currently exist on the site. Health Care Increase in study area population would increase the need for hospital beds in the Valley Medical Center (VMC) service area by approximately 4.1 to 4.4 beds, based on the current ratio of hospital beds to district service area population. Additional population growth may also Based VMC’s existing ratio of hospital beds to district population, the anticipated population increase would result in a small increase of approximately 0.5 to 0.8 hospital beds of the total assumed for the entire study area. Planned Action Ordinance 49 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea result in increased demand at VMC’s nearby primary care and urgent care clinics. Social Services Planned Action Alternatives include major public investments, which could expand upon or enhance social services in the study area. Among the key components outside of Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea is development of a family village in the North Subarea. The subarea’s new affordable housing development for seniors would include enriched senior services on site, including elder day-health for off-site patients in a 12,500-square-foot space on the northeastern vacant RHA parcel. The increased population of affordable housing and, in particular, affordable senior housing would increase the demand for social services, including senior services accessible to the subarea. Additional community space at the family village, would be located outside but nearby the subarea. Solid Waste Solid waste generation is expected to increase by around 129,689 to 139,000 pounds per week compared to existing conditions. A portion of this waste stream would be diverted to recyclables. Solid waste generation from the subarea would increase by about 14,750 to 9,300 pounds per week compared to existing conditions. A percentage of this waste would be diverted to recycling. Library Services Anticipated growth would create a demand for an additional 1,940 to 2,079 square feet of library space compared to existing conditions. Anticipated growth in the subarea would account for approximately 221-397 square feet of library facilities to meet the growth in demand. Indirect and Cumulative All alternatives increase growth above existing conditions and would add to a citywide increase in demand for public services; however, the alternatives are accommodating an increment of growth already anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan at a citywide level, and planned growth to the year 2031 will be addressed in the City’s 2014 Comprehensive Plan update.. Same as Planned Action Study Area Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Demand for public services will continue to increase in conjunction with population growth. With advanced planning and implementation of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse Planned Action Ordinance 50 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document impacts related to police, fire/emergency medical, education, health care, social services, solid waste, or library services are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Table 32. Public Services Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Police During construction, security measures shall be implemented by developers to reduce potential criminal activity, including on-site security surveillance, lighting, and fencing to prevent public access. Such measures shall be detailed in a construction mitigation plan prepared by Planned Action Applicants and approved by the City. Planned Action applicants shall design street layouts, open space, and recreation areas to promote visibility for residents and police. Street and sidewalk lighting would discourage theft and vandalism, and enhance security. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Developers will construct all new buildings in compliance with the International Fire Code and Renton Development Regulations (RMC Title 4), including provision of emergency egress routes and installation of fire extinguishing and smoke detection systems. All new buildings will comply with accessibility standard for people with disabilities, per the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Planned Action applicants shall pay a Fire Impact Fee as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment, payable to the City as specified in the Renton Municipal Code. Education During renovation of the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center, the Renton School District shall provide temporary transportation or take other equivalent measures to ensure accessibility of the early education program to area children who attend the program. Since the school district typically plans for a shorter-term horizon than the 20 years envisioned for the Planned Action, the district will continue to monitor student generation rates into the future and adjust its facility planning accordingly. The district will continue to implement existing plans to expand permanent student capacity at area schools. In addition, the district may utilize portable classrooms or shift attendance boundaries to address student Police Mitigation measures described for the Planned Action Study Area also apply to this Subarea. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Mitigation measures described for the Planned Action Study Area also apply to this Subarea. Education No mitigation measures are necessary or proposed. Health Care No mitigation measures are necessary or proposed. Social Services RHA’s provision of community space that could be used for social services or community meeting space for community organizations would serve as mitigation. See the discussion under the Planned Action Study Area. RHA should maintain a community meeting space within or near the subarea during construction phase of Sunset Terrace redevelopment that allows for on-site social service programs to continue to meet within the subarea. Solid Waste Mitigation measures described for the Planned Action Study Area also apply to this Subarea. Public Library The King County Library System should continue to monitor growth within its geographic clusters, and adjust plans for facility sizing and spacing according to shifting trends in population growth. Planned Action Ordinance 51 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea capacity issues that arise on a shorter term basis. The district will also continue monitoring growth in the number of English Language Learner students in the district, and plan additional capacity in that program to meet growing demands for that service, particularly in schools with high percentages of English Language Learners, such as Highlands Elementary. The school district imposes a school impact fee for new residential construction. This funding source can be used to help provide expanded school facilities needed to serve the growth anticipated under all alternatives (RMC 4-1-160). Health Care There are no mitigation measures needed or proposed for health care due to the negligible change in the number of beds. Social Services The City’s planned improvements to the streetscape and transit facilities that make walking, bicycling, and taking transit more viable modes of transportation would improve accessibility of social services located outside the Planned Action Study Area to area residents. RHA, Renton School District, and the City should work together to relocate the Friendly Kitchen community feeding program when the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center campus, the current site of this program, is redeveloped as part of a family village. Relocation should occur at an accessible location nearby to maintain service to the existing community that relies upon the Friendly Kitchen services. If possible, Renton School District and RHA should incorporate space for the continuation of the Friendly Kitchen Program within the family village. RHA and the City should consider developing a community center facility as part of Sunset Terrace redevelopment or the family village development or at another location in the Planned Action Study Area. The center would provide an accessible on-site space for a comprehensive range of social services for residents in the Planned Action Study Area, focused on alleviating poverty, and addressing the needs of some of the more predominant demographic groups found within the Planned Action Study Area—seniors, individuals living with disabilities, those speaking English as a Second Language, and youth. Solid Waste The City shall require development applicants to consider recycling and reuse of building materials Planned Action Ordinance 52 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea when redeveloping sites, and as part of their application explain what measures are included. The City may condition Planned Action applications to incorporate feasible recycling and reuse measures. Public Library The King County Library System should continue to monitor growth within its geographic clusters, and adjust plans for facility sizing and spacing according to shifting trends in population growth. Nexus Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC Title IV Chapter 1 Administration and Enforcement RMC Title IV Chapter 5 Building and Fire Prevention Standards 17. Utilities Significant Impacts Table 33. Utilities Impacts Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Where new construction occurs, it is anticipated that existing telecommunication lines would be removed, replaced, or abandoned in place. Redevelopment would require coordination with service providers regarding the location of proposed structures, utilities, and site grading. To accommodate the required demand and capacity for water and sewer services for new development and redevelopment in the study area, existing water and sanitary sewer lines would be abandoned in place or removed and replaced with new and larger lines. New and larger water and sewer mains would be installed in existing and/or future dedicated public rights-of-way or within dedicated utility easements to the City, and would connect with the existing Same as Planned Action Study Area Planned Action Ordinance 53 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea distribution network. Existing utility lines would continue to service the site during construction, or temporary bypass service would be implemented until the distribution or collection system is complete and operational. Operations Telecommunications Increased capacity requirements with increased levels of population and commercial activity in each of the alternatives could require new fiber within the Planned Action Study Area and coordination with telecommunication providers as development occurs should be performed so that appropriate facilities can be planned. Same as Planned Action Study Area Water The increase in the average daily demand (ADD) is projected to be 0.56 to 0.59 million gallons per day within the Planned Action Study Area. The growth projected would increase the storage requirements for the Highlands 435 and 565 pressure zones and further increase the existing storage deficit in the Highlands 435 pressure zone. In addition, the development that is projected for the Planned Action Study Area would increase the fire-flow requirements with more multifamily development and commercial development. The capacity of the existing water distribution system to meet these higher fire flows is inadequate if system improvements are not constructed. The increase in ADD for this subarea is 0.05 to 0.09 million gallons per day. The increase in the peak daily demand (PDD) for this subarea is 0.09 to 0.16 million gallons per day. The primary significant impact of subarea development on the water distribution system would be related increased fire-flow requirements. These increased fire flow requirements are substantial and cannot be met by the existing distribution system serving the subarea. Water system pressure provided by the 435 pressure zone within the subarea is not adequate for multistory development and/or for development with fire sprinkler systems. New water mains extended from the higher-pressure 565 pressure zone system to service the subarea would need to be phased to accommodate growth. Planned Action Ordinance 54 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Wastewater The increase in wastewater load for the Planned Action Study Area is 0.59 to 0.63 million gallons per day. This increase in wastewater load is not expected to affect the wastewater interceptors that provide conveyance of wastewater from the Planned Action Study Area but it could increase surcharging that is currently experienced and observed within the Planned Action Study Area. The increase in wastewater flow in this subarea is 0.05 to 0.10 million gallons per day. Similar to the Planned Action Study Area, no impacts on the interceptors that provide conveyance from the subarea are expected, but the increased sewer load could impact local sewers within the subarea. Indirect and Cumulative Demands on utilities would increase as a result of cumulative development. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated as long as the replacement of water and sewer infrastructure is properly planned, designed, and constructed, and funding strategies are identified and approved by City Council. Same as Planned Action Study Area Unavoidable Adverse Impacts All studied alternatives are anticipated to increase demand for water, wastewater, and telecommunication services. Increased growth in the Planned Action Study Area has the potential to exacerbate existing water and wastewater system deficiencies. However, with application of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Table 34. Utilities Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Water To mitigate the current and projected water storage deficit in the pressure zones that serve the study area, the City completed the construction of the 4.2-million-gallon Hazen Reservoir in the Highlands 565 pressure zone in March 2009. The City also completed a water distribution storage feasibility study to develop conceptual options and planning level cost estimates for expanding the storage capacity at two existing City-owned sites: the Highlands Reservoirs site and the Mt. Olivet Tank site Water The mitigation measures that are required in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are similar to those noted for the Planned Action Study Area. The water storage deficit would be met with an increase in storage at the existing Highlands Reservoirs site, and fire-flow requirements would require the new 12-inch-diameter pipe loop throughout this subarea and realignment of the Highlands 435 and Highlands 565 pressure zones. As noted previously, the City has recently installed a new 12-inch-diameter main for development Planned Action Ordinance 55 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea (HDR, Inc. 2009). Financial strategies for the planning, design, and construction of the storage-capacity expansion have not been determined at this time. To mitigate the fire-flow requirements for the proposed level of development and redevelopment within the Planned Action Study Area, larger diameter (12-inch) piping is required throughout the Planned Action Study Area to convey the higher fire-flow requirements. The new water mains will be looped for reliability and redundancy of service, as required by City policies and water design standards. The larger mains will be installed within the dedicated right-of-way in a north-to-south and east-to-west grid-style water system. Additional mains within the development sites will also be required to provide water to hydrants and water meters, and should be looped within the development site around buildings. To provide the water pressure requirements for multistory buildings and to support the pressure requirements for fire sprinkler systems, the new water mains will be connected to the higher-pressure Highlands 565 pressure zone. The options to address fire flow within the Planned Action Study Area are further described below. The Highlands 565 pressure zone typically has enough pressure to meet the pressure needs for fire-flow requirements for the proposed development and redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area, but is limited in providing the fire-flow rate due to the size of the existing water mains that are generally smaller than 12 inches in diameter. The Highlands 435 pressure zone operates at lower pressures and has smaller-diameter pipes in this area of the pressure zone and, therefore, cannot meet both the pressure requirements and the fire-flow capacity (flow) requirements. The options developed to remedy fire-flow and pressure inadequacies are shown in Draft EIS Section 4.17, Figure 4.17-1 and summarized below. A 12-inch-diameter pipeline loop shown in Draft EIS Section 4.17, Figure 4.17-1 was developed to extend the Highlands 565 pressure zone into the existing Highlands 435 pressure zone. This 12-inch-diameter loop was also extended north of NE 12th Street in the existing Highlands 565 pressure zone to improve the conveyance capacity throughout adjacent to this subarea, and as development occurs in the subarea, the pipe network would need to be extended to serve the development. A more detailed discussion of needed system improvements is provided in Attachment 2.Wastewater Collection The sewers within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are also identified for replacement based on age and condition in the City’s Long Range Wastewater Management Plan. Based on the increased wastewater load within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, the local sewers may need to be replaced with upsized pipe to manage the increased wastewater load from the subarea. A more detailed discussion of needed sewer system improvements is provided Attachment 2. Planned Action Ordinance 56 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea the Planned Action Study Area. This 12-inch-diameter loop improvement builds on the City’s recent extension of the Highlands 565 pressure zone into the Highlands 435 pressure zone to support fire-flow requirements for the Harrington Square Development. In addition to the 12-inch-diameter pipe loop shown in Draft EIS Section 4.17, Figure 4.17-1, additional piping improvements for each development served from the 12-inch-diameter loop are expected to be required to provide sufficient fire flow and pressure throughout each development. The sizing and layout of this additional piping will depend on the development layout, but will require that the development piping be looped around buildings and be sufficient in size to maintain the fire-flow requirements of the development. Wastewater Collection The local wastewater collection system n the Planned Action Study Area is scheduled for replacement based on age and condition as noted in the City of Renton Long Range Wastewater Management Plan (City of Renton 2009b). The local sewers have reached the end of their useful life and have been identified as high priority replacements due to leaks and current surcharging. However, the increased wastewater load with the development in the Planned Action Study Area could require that the local sewers be replaced with larger diameter pipe to provide sufficient capacity to the wastewater interceptors that serve the Planned Action Study Area. The locations where lines would be improved are identified in Draft EIS Section 4.17. Nexus Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC Title IV Chapter 1 Administration and Enforcement RMC Title IV Chapter 6 Street and Utility Standards Advisory Notes The EIS identified potentially applicable federal, state, and local laws and rules that apply to Planned Actions and that can serve to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. It is assumed that all applicable federal, state, and local regulations would be applied. The primary set of applicable local Planned Action Ordinance 57 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document regulations is the Renton Municipal Code. A list of specific requirements included in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS. Planned Action Ordinance 58 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Attachment 1: Draft EIS, Cultural Resources Appendix J, Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery of Human Skeletal Remains or Cultural Resources during Redevelopment of the Edmonds- Glenwood Lot, Harrington Lot, and Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex in Renton, Washington Any human skeletal remains that are discovered during this project will be treated with dignity and respect. A. If any City of Renton employee or any of the contractors or subcontractors believes that he or she has made an unanticipated discovery of human skeletal remains or cultural resources, all work adjacent to the discovery shall cease. The area of work stoppage will be adequate to provide for the security, protection, and integrity of the human skeletal remains, in accordance with Washington State Law. The City of Renton project manager will be contacted. B. The City of Renton project manager or the City of Renton representative will be responsible for taking appropriate steps to protect the discovery. At a minimum, the immediate area will be secured to a distance of thirty (30) feet from the discovery. Vehicles, equipment, and unauthorized personnel will not be permitted to traverse the discovery site. C. If skeletal remains are discovered, the City of Renton will immediately call the King County Sheriff’s office, the King County Coroner, and a cultural resource specialist or consultant qualified to identify human skeletal remains. The county coroner will determine if the remains are forensic or non-forensic (whether related to a criminal investigation). The remains should be protected in place until this has been determined. D. If the human skeletal remains are determined to be non-forensic, the King County Coroner will notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. DAHP will take jurisdiction over the remains. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Native American or Non-Native American. DAHP will handle all consultation with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe as to the treatment of the remains. E. If cultural resources are uncovered, such as stone tools or flakes, fire-cracked rocks from a hearth feature, butchered animal bones, or historic-era objects (e.g., patent medicine bottles, milk tins, clay pipes, building foundations), the City of Renton will arrange for a qualified professional archaeologist to evaluate the find. Again, the cultural resources will be protected in place until the archaeologist has examined the find. F. If the cultural resources find is determined to be significant, the City of Renton cultural resource specialist/archaeologist or consulting archaeologist will immediately contact the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribes Planned Action Ordinance 59 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document to seek consultation regarding the eligibility of any further discovery for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. CONTACT INFORMATION Erika Conkling, AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Phone: (425) 430-6578 Stephanie Kramer Assistant State Archaeologist Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 1063 Capitol Way South Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Phone: (360) 586-3083 King County Sheriff’s Office Headquarters 516 Third Avenue, Room W-150 Seattle, WA 98104-2312 Phone: (206) 296-4155 (non-emergency) Laura Murphy Muckleshoot Tribe Cultural Resources 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Phone: (253) 876-3272 Planned Action Ordinance 60 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Attachment 2: Figure 3.17-1 Potential Subarea Utility Improvements and Phasing Planned Action Ordinance 61 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Water The mitigation measures that are required in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are similar to those noted for the Planned Action Study Area. The water storage deficit would be met with an increase in storage at the existing Highlands Reservoirs site, and fire-flow requirements would require the new 12-inch-diameter pipe loop throughout this subarea and realignment of the Highlands 435 and Highlands 565 pressure zones. As noted previously, the City has recently installed a new 12-inch-diameter main for development adjacent to this subarea, and as development occurs in the subarea, the pipe network would need to be extended to serve the development. A more detailed discussion of needed system improvements is provided below. Overview Renton fire and building codes mandate minimum fire flows, durations, and pressure prior to occupancy of new structures. In the case of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea these mandated flows dictate substantial upgrades to the water distribution system. When the fire flow required for a new development exceeds 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm), the City also requires that the mains providing that fire flow be looped. Looped water mains provide more reliability and higher pressures under fire-flow conditions. City regulations also require installation of fire hydrants along all arterials such as NE Sunset Boulevard. Taken together these code requirements would lead to a series of new water mains connected to the 565 pressure zone and extended to the various redevelopment projects within the subarea. It is not possible to predict the precise timing and sequencing of these redevelopment projects. The following paragraphs illustrate one scenario of water main sequencing that could meet fire-flow requirements. Edmonds-Glenwood Phase 1 Phase 1 of the Edmonds-Glenwood redevelopment project consists of townhomes along Glenwood Avenue NE. Fire-flow requirements for this project are expected to be in the range of 2,500 gpm. The existing water system in Glenwood Avenue NE cannot provide that amount of fire flow. A new 12-inch-diameter water main would be required to be extended from Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street in the 565 pressure zone, south along Harrington Avenue NE, and continuing along Glenwood Avenue NE past and through the project site, about 800 feet of new pipe (Segment A on Figure 3.17-1). New Library A new library is proposed in the northeast quadrant of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE. If the fire-flow requirements for the new library are about 2,500 gpm or less, then the existing 12-inch-diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard could meet that requirement. Planned Action Ordinance 62 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document New Mixed-Use Building Adjacent to New Library A new mixed-use community service/retail/residential structure is proposed adjacent to the new library between NE Sunset Boulevard, NE 10th Street, and Sunset Lane NE. It is reasonable to expect that the combination of additional structure size and exposure (to the library) would mandate fire flows for this building in excess of 2,500 gpm. In that case, a looped system of mains from the 565 pressure zone would be required. This could be achieved by extending new mains from the existing 12-inch-diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard northwesterly on both Harrington Avenue NE and NE 10th Street to Sunset Lane NE. The loop could then be connected by installing a new 12-inch-diameter main in Sunset Lane NE from Harrington Avenue NE to NE 10th Street. The existing water main in Sunset Lane NE could then be abandoned in place. This new loop would be about 700 feet in total length (Segment B on Figure 3.17-1). RHA’s Piha Site Fire flows required for the PIHA site development have not been established. If the flow requirement is 2,500 gpm or less, then it could be met by extending a new 12 inch main in NE 10th Street past the site to Harrington Avenue NE. The extension could either be from NE Sunset Boulevard (if the project precedes the mixed use development adjacent to the library). Or it could be from Sunset Lane NE, if the project occurs after the mixed use development adjacent to the library. The length of pipe required from Sunset Boulevard would be about 500 feet; from Sunset Lane NE it would be about 350 feet. (Segment C on Figure 3.17-1) It is possible that required fire flows for the PIHA site would exceed 2,500 gpm. In that situation a looped main system would be necessary. There are multiple scenarios to meet the looping requirements. Those fire flow looping scenarios depend largely on the timing and sequencing of the PISA site project; i.e. does it precede or follow other redevelopment projects contemplated for the project area. Under one scenario, if the PIHA site development precedes construction of Phase II and III of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment looping could be achieved by extending another main (in addition to Segment C, discussed above) north on Harrington Avenue NE to Glenwood Avenue NE (Segment H on Figure 3.17-1). If PIHA site development follows Phases II and III of Sunset Terrace, looping could be achieved by simply connecting the PIHA main extension in NE 10th Street (Segment C) with Segment E at the intersection of Harrington Avenue NE and NE 10th Street. Under another scenario, the PIHA site development could proceed before all other projects. In that case the cost of looping would not be shared with other projects as described in the preceding paragraphs and the PIHA site project would need to install either a “long-term” or a “temporary” 12 inch diameter “stand alone” water main loop. The “long-term” alignment would be to extend a 12-inch main in Harrington Avenue NE connecting to the existing high-pressure water line in NE Sunset Blvd. This option would result in the installation of a new water main in the section of Harrington Avenue NE that is proposed to be vacated to help create the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Neighborhood Park. The new 12-inch water main would be looped around the west and north side of the new PIHA site building and extended southerly in Sunset Lane NE to NE 10th Street, then southeasterly in NE 10th Street to connect back to the existing 12-inch line in Sunset Boulevard NE. (Segment P1 on Figure 3.17-1) This new looped water main would be able to deliver about 5,000 gpm. Planned Action Ordinance 63 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document A temporary route (which is not the preferred option) to provide 5,000 gpm to the same site would be to extend two parallel 12-inch water lines in NE 10th Street from the existing 12-inch line in Sunset Boulevard NE, along with a looped water main around the west and north side of the building, and a 12-inch line in Sunset Lane NE connecting back to the second new 12-inch main in NE 10th Street. (Segment P2 on Figure 3.17-1) Sunset Terrace Redevelopment It is reasonable to assume that the fire flows required for the Sunset Terrace redevelopment would exceed 2,500 gpm, mandating installation of a looped system. In addition, Sunset Terrace abuts NE Sunset Boulevard, triggering the requirement to install hydrants every 400 feet along that arterial. It may be possible to phase the Sunset Terrace redevelopment in a manner that would allow early elements of the redevelopment to be constructed without looping the water mains (see Edmonds-Glenwood Phase 1, above). In any case, all mains serving the redevelopment would be extended from the 565 pressure zone. Initially, a new water main would be installed in Sunset Lane NE from Harrington Avenue NE to Glenwood Avenue NE (about 750 feet). This presumes that the new main in Harrington Avenue NE discussed in the Mixed-Use Building section, above, has been installed. The existing water main in Sunset Lane NE could be abandoned in place (Segment D on Figure 3.17-1). Looping the system could be achieved by extending the main from the intersection of Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE along the newly aligned NE 10th Street to Harrington Avenue NE (about 250 feet) (Segment E on Figure 3.17-1). This presumes that the water main extension in NE 10th Street to serve RHA’s Piha site has already be installed. There are two ways to install the required fire hydrants along NE Sunset Boulevard. One option would be to extend the 12-inch-diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard from Harrington Avenue NE along the Sunset Terrace frontage (about 800 feet). This would be the most expensive option. Another option would be to extend fire hydrant leads southwesterly through the Sunset Terrace project from Sunset Lane NE to NE Sunset Boulevard at the appropriate intervals (Segments F on Figure 3.17-1). This would be the least expensive option for two reasons. First, the pipes would not be installed in a street avoiding significant restoration costs. Second, the pipes could be smaller because they would be single purpose and not part of the City’s transmission/distribution system. Edmonds-Glenwood Phase 2 Fire-flow requirements for the Edmonds-Glenwood Phase 2 project are expected to be about 4,000 gpm, triggering the requirement to loop the water system. There are two options to meet this looping requirement: north or south. The north option would involve extending the 12-inch-diameter main from Phase 1 westerly through the site to Edmonds Avenue NE. From there, the main would be extended north in Edmonds Avenue NE to NE 12th Street, then east in NE 12th Street to Harrington Avenue NE, a distance of more than 1,500 feet (Segment G on Figure 3.17-1). The south option would begin in the same manner by extending the Phase 1 main through the project site. Looping would be achieved by installing two new mains. One would extend from Sunset Lane NE north in Glenwood Avenue NE to the Phase 1 pipe. The other would extend Planned Action Ordinance 64 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document northwesterly in easements adjacent to NE Sunset Boulevard and Edmonds Avenue NE from the northern-most fire hydrant lead installed for the Sunset Terrace project through the Phase 2 site. (A more expensive option would be to install this same section of pipe in the rights-of-way of NE Sunset Boulevard and Edmonds Avenue NE.) These loops would also comprise more than 1,500 feet of new pipe (Segment H on Figure 3.17-1). Water Main Costs The cost of installation for new water mains is driven by a number of factors. Water mains installed in roads are more expensive than water mains installed within project or open space areas, because of the cost savings of avoiding conflicting utilities and restoring the road surface. New water main costs are also affected by whether they are stand-alone or part of a suite of infrastructure improvements. If the project is only installing a new water main, then all of the excavation, bedding, installation, and other costs are borne by that project. If the project involves installation of the other underground utilities such as sewers or storm sewers, the costs common to the project can be spread across each utility facility being installed. The cost of water mains is also affected by the project sponsor. If the project is being constructed by a private developer, new water mains are less expensive. If the project is sponsored by a government agency, numerous statutes make new water main projects more expensive. The City’s recent experience with stand-alone water main projects in a major arterial indicate costs per foot of about $200 to $250. Applying these costs to the water main improvement described above would indicate costs in the range of $1 to 1.2 million. The improvements would be implemented with City and developer funding. Wastewater Collection Overview The sewers within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are also identified for replacement based on age and condition in the City’s Long Range Wastewater Management Plan. Based on the increased wastewater load within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, the local sewers may need to be replaced with upsized pipe to manage the increased wastewater load from the subarea. A more detailed discussion of needed sewer system improvements is provided below. Detailed Discussion Mitigation issues related to wastewater fall into three broad categories: upsizing, rehabilitation, and relocation. Wastewater flows (forecast for the Planned Action Study Area, including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) indicate that some existing sewer pipes must be replaced with larger pipes. One of those pipes is in Harrington Avenue NE. This sewer pipe would be replaced by the City as part of the overall Sunset Terrace redevelopment to accommodate forecast flows. Planned Action Ordinance 65 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Manholes along the Harrington alignment would be carefully designed and located to avoid interference with the planned park. The collection sewers in Sunset Lane NE are at or near the end of their design life. The condition of these sewers would be assessed to determine if they can be rehabilitated in place or if new pipes would need to be installed. The redevelopment concept proposes narrowing and shifting the alignment of Sunset Lane NE. If this action leaves the existing sewers too close to new structures, then the City would require that a new sewer main be installed within the new right-of-way of Sunset Lane NE. Planned Action Ordinance 66 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Appendix F Noise Analysis and Criteria—Preferred Alternative   Memorandum Date: February 23, 2011 To: Erika Conkling, Senior Planner, City of Renton Cc: Jim Wilder, PE, ICF Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner, ICF From: Kai-Ling Kuo, PE, ICF Subject: Documentation of Meeting HUD Noise Criteria Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea This memorandum documents and demonstrates that the proposed housing developments in Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea meet the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) noise criteria as outlined under 24 CFR 51, Subpart B – Noise Abatement and Control. In summary, the project meets the exterior noise standards in Section 51.103, by satisfying special circumstances under Section 51.105(a), which shift the acceptable threshold from 65 dBA Ldn to 70 dBA Ldn. The project will employ additional attenuation measures, where feasible, to satisfy Section 51.104(a) and meet HUD’s interior noise goals in Section 51.101(9). Section 51.103 – Criteria and Standards. (c) Exterior standards. (2) The noise environment inside a building is considered acceptable if: (i) The noise environment external to the building complies with these standards, and (ii) the building is constructed in a manner common to the area or, if of uncommon construction, has at least the equivalent noise attenuation characteristics. According to Section 51.103(c), the Site Acceptability Standard of 65 dBA Ldn may be shifted to 70 dB in special circumstances pursuant to Section 51.105(a). The Preferred Alternative would result in exterior noise levels of 68-69 dBA Ldn. The Preferred Alternative satisfies special circumstances pursuant to Section 51.105(a); therefore the noise environment external to the proposed buildings comply complies with the Site Acceptability Standard of 70 dBA Ldn. The building is constructed in a manner common to the Pacific Northwest area, which compiles with Section 51.103(c)(ii). (See further discussion below.) Section 51.104 – Special Requirements. (a)(1) Noise attenuation. Noise attenuation measures are those required in addition to attenuation provided by buildings as commonly constructed in the area, and requiring open windows for ventilation. Measures that reduce external noise at a site shall be used wherever practicable in preference to the incorporation of additional noise attenuation in buildings. Building designs and construction techniques that provide more noise attenuation than typical construction may be employed also to meet the noise attenuation requirements. (2) Normally unacceptable noise zones Documentation of Meeting HUD Noise Criteria February 23, 2011 Page 2 of 4 and unacceptable noise zones. Approvals in Normally Unacceptable Noise Zones require a minimum of 5 decibels additional sound attenuation for buildings having noise-sensitive uses if the day-night average sound level is greater than 65 decibels but does not exceed 70 decibels, or a minimum of 10 decibels of additional sound attenuation if the day-night average sound level is greater than 70 decibels but does not exceed 75 decibels. Noise attenuation measures in Unacceptable Noise Zones require the approval of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, or the Certifying Officer for activities subject to 24 CFR part 58. (See Section 51.104(b)(2).) The Preferred Alternative would result in exterior noise levels of 68-69 dBA Ldn. According to Section 51.104(a), 5 dB additional sound attenuation is required for buildings having noise-sensitive uses if the day-night average sound level is greater than 65 decibels but does not exceed 70 decibels. According to the HUD Noise Guidebook, the standard construction approaches with closed windows can normally achieve the sound attenuation of more than 24 dBA to meet the interior noise standard of 45 dBA Ldn. To comply with Section 51.104(a), the project mitigation is to provide minimum attenuation of 30 dBA. (See attachment for assumptions.) Section 51.101 – General Policy. (9) Interior noise goals. It is a HUD goal that the interior auditory environment shall not exceed a day-night average sound level of 45 decibels. Attenuation measures to meet these interior goals shall be employed where feasible. Emphasis shall be given to noise sensitive interior spaces such as bedrooms. Minimum attenuation requirements are prescribed in Section 51.104(a). The proposed buildings comply with Section 51.101(9), because according to the HUD noise guidebook, the standard construction approaches with closed windows can normally achieve the sound attenuation of more than 24 dBA to meet the interior noise standard of 45 dBA Ldn. Although opening of windows will expose the units adjacent to Sunset Boulevard to levels above the HUD interior noise standard of 45 dBA Ldn, on an average day, the project meets the HUD interior noise goals with following reasons.  The noise environment external to the building complies with the Site Acceptability Standards of Section 51.103(c).  The building will be constructed in a manner common to the area, Section 51.103(c)(ii). Therefore, there is no mechanical ventilation or air conditioning present in the rest of the building.  When windows are closed, the building will employ additional attenuation measures to satisfy Section 51.104(a) and meet the HUD’s Interior noise goals in Section 51.101(9).  Occasionally, under excessive temperatures, the residents may choose to open windows; however, the average interior nose levels will still meet interior noise standard of 45 dBA Ldn.  The City proposes to include in mitigation measure a conservative performance standard – STC rating of 30 dBA – to ensure reasonable attempts will be made to meet the HUD Interior Noise Goals when windows are unopened with §51.101(9), which state that "It is a HUD goal that the interior auditory environment shall not exceed a day-night average sound level of 45 decibels. Section 51.105 –Exceptions. (a) Flexibility for non-acoustic benefits. Where it is determined that program objectives cannot be achieved on sites meeting the acceptability standard of 65 decibels, the Acceptable Zone may be shifted to Ldn 70 on a case-by-case basis if all the following conditions are satisfied: Documentation of Meeting HUD Noise Criteria February 23, 2011 Page 3 of 4 (1) The project does not require an Environmental Impact Statement under provisions of Section 51.104(b)(1) and noise is the only environmental issue. (2) The project has received a Special Environmental Clearance and has received the concurrence of the Environmental Clearance Officer. (3) The project meets other program goals to provide housing in proximity to employment, public facilities and transportation. (4) The project is in conformance with local goals and maintains the character of the neighborhood. (5) The project sponsor has set forth reasons, acceptable to HUD, as to why the noise attenuation measures that would normally be required for new construction in the Ldn 65 to Ldn 70 zone cannot be met. (6) Other sites which are not exposed to noise above Ldn 65 and which meet program objectives are generally not available. Response:  The Sunset Terrace redevelopment did not require an EIS. Section 51.104(b)(1) refers to greenfield redevelopment rather than redevelopment within an urban context. Also, according to thresholds in 24 CFR Part 58 Section 58.37, the size of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment (maximum dwellings in the most intensive concept included 589 dwellings) does not exceed the thresholds for an EIS under NEPA. The City and RHA elected to prepare an EIS as they were seeking to use a tool allowed under Washington State Environmental Policy Act – a planned action – which facilitates future development.  The City is the responsible entity and is granting the Special Environmental Clearance on the basis of the EIS noise analysis and the characteristics of the proposals .  The project is a mixed use development with residential, commercial, and civic uses along a major transportation and transit route (SR 900). The project includes improvements to the civic and transportation facilities (e.g. library, green stormwater infrastructure, new water/sewer lines, streetscape and pedestrian improvements) to facilitate employment and housing investment in the neighborhood and to reinforce transit services.  The project is in conformance with City plans (see Draft EIS Section 3.8/4.8 and Final EIS Section 3.8) and matches the character of the neighborhood (see Draft EIS Section 3.12/4.12 and Final EIS Section 3.12).  The noise analysis in Draft EIS Section 3.6/4.6 and Final EIS Section 3.6 shows that sound walls are not feasible due to the height and location and lack of benefit to upper storey uses; the mixed use character of the development close to sidewalks and roads intended to invite community use. The shallow nature of the property, topography, lot pattern, and the road system as well as zoning requirements mean that the building setbacks from NE Sunset Boulevard are the most that can be achieved and are greater than the current development.  Other sites meeting program objectives are not available. The objectives are to transform and integrate Sunset Terrace into a new mixed use, mixed income development with public amenities serving the broader community and serving as a catalyst for positive private investment in the community. The present site is the most appropriate. Documentation of Meeting HUD Noise Criteria February 23, 2011 Page 4 of 4 Attachment: HUD STC Ratings and Noise Levels The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published The Noise Guidebook 1 Assumptions which includes Sound Transmission Class (STC) Guidance for different construction types (Chapter 4 Supplement). This attachment presents calculations using HUD’s STC method to determine whether standard construction can achieve sound reduction sufficient to achieve HUDs interior noise standard of 45 dBA. The STC for a standard exterior wall – 39 db (Table 3 on page 38 of Chapter 4 - 5/8” plywood siding, fiberglass insulation, 2x4 studs 16” o.c., ½” insulation board sheathing, ½” Gypsum board) The STC for an aluminum single hung window, closed, glazed with 7/16” insulating glass – 25 dB (Table 3 on page 38 of Chapter 4) Percentage of wall occupied by window – 30% Results With an exterior noise level over 68 dBA under all the action and no action alternatives, the proposed buildings would be required to achieve a minimum 24 dBA reduction to meet the interior standard of 45 dBA. Based on the assumptions above the resulting STC from the building equals 32 dB (Figure 17 on page 25 of Chapter 4). Thus, the building structure itself with closed windows can provide enough STC rating to meet the interior standard of 45 dBA. However, an STC rating of 30 dBA is recommended for first-row residential dwellings because the HUD Noise Guidebook shows that the sound reduction achieved by different techniques may be a little optimistic.2 1 1985. The Noise Guidebook. A Reference Document for Implementing the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Noise Policy. Environmental Planning Division, Office of Environment and Energy. Available: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/training/guidebooks/noise/. Accessed: January 11, 2011. 2 HUD noise guidebook, Chapter 4, page 33 “… use the STC ratings with a bit of caution and remain aware of the possible 2–3 dB overstating that you may get with the STC rating system.” Appendix G Cultural Resources—Three Sites Study   STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address: PO Box 48343 Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360) 586-3065 Fax Number (360) 586-3067 Website: www.dahp.wa.gov February 24, 2011 Mr. Gregg Zimmerman Community & Economic Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Re: Multifamily/ Institutional Bldgs. Project Log No.: 022411-06-HUD Dear Mr. Zimmerman: Thank you for contacting our department. We have reviewed the professional archaeological survey report for the proposed Multifamily/ Institutional Buildings Project at 2902 NE 12th Street, 1150 Harrington Ave. NE, and Kirkland Ave NE –NE15th and NE 16th Streets, Renton, King County, Washington. We concur with the determination of No Historic Properties Affected. We would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribe’s cultural committee or other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800.4(a)(4). In the event that archaeological or historic materials are discovered during project activities, work in the immediate vicinity must stop, the area secured, and this department and the tribe’s cultural committee notified. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer in compliance with the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and its implementing regulations 36CFR800.4. Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised, including information regarding historic properties that have not yet been identified. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and a copy of these comments should be included in subsequent environmental documents. Sincerely, Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D. State Archaeologist (360)586-3080 email: rob.whitlam@dahp.wa.gov CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET Author: Alexander E. Stevenson, J. Tait Elder, MA, Melissa Cascella, MA, and Christopher Hetzel, MA Title of Report: Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three Project Sites in the Renton Susnet Terrace Neighborhood Date of Report: February 2011 County(ies): King Section: 9 Township: 23 Range: 5E Quad: Mercer Island 47122-E2 and Renton 47122-D2 Acres: Approximately 3.89 acres PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) Yes Historic Property Export Files submitted? Yes No Not Applicable Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? Yes No TCP(s) found? Yes No Replace a draft? Yes No Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? Yes # No DAHP Archaeological Site #:   C ULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT  DEVELOPMENT OF THREE PROJECT SITES IN  THE RENTON SUNSET TERRACE  NEIGHBORHOOD  P REPARED FOR:  City of Renton  NEPA Responsible Entity and SEPA Lead Agency  Department of Community and Economic Development  1055 S. Grady Way  Renton, WA 98057    In partnership with  Renton Housing Authority  2900 Northeast 10th Street  Renton, Washington 98056  P REPARED BY:  Alexander E. Stevenson, J. Tait Elder, MA, Melissa Cascella, MA, and  Christopher Hetzel, MA  ICF International  710 Second Avenue, Suite 550  Seattle, WA 98104  Contact: Christopher Hetzel  206.801.2817  February 2011      Alexander E. Stevenson, J. Tait Elder, MA, Melissa Cascella, MA, and  Christopher Hetzel, MA. 2011. Cultural Resources Survey Report—  Development of Three Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood.  February. (ICF 593.10) Seattle, WA. Prepared for City of Renton, in  partnership with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA.  Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood i February 2011 ICF 00593.10   Contents  Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1‐1  Project Description ................................................................................................................. 1‐1  Project Background ................................................................................................................ 1‐1  Personnel ................................................................................................................... 1‐1  Location ..................................................................................................................... 1‐1  Area of Potential Effects ............................................................................................ 1‐2  Regulatory Context .................................................................................................... 1‐2  Chapter 2 Environmental and Cultural Setting ................................................................................... 2‐1  Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................ 2‐1  Geologic Background ................................................................................................. 2‐1  Flora and Fauna ......................................................................................................... 2‐1  Cultural Setting ....................................................................................................................... 2‐1  Precontact ................................................................................................................. 2‐1  Ethnographic and Ethnohistoric ................................................................................ 2‐2  Historic Context ......................................................................................................... 2‐3  Chapter 3 Literature Review and Consultation .................................................................................. 3‐1  Existing Data and Background Data ....................................................................................... 3‐1  Records Research ...................................................................................................... 3‐1  Chapter 4 Research Design ................................................................................................................ 4‐1  Objectives and Expectations .................................................................................................. 4‐1  Research Methods .................................................................................................................. 4‐1  Archaeological Investigations .................................................................................... 4‐1  Historical Resources Survey ...................................................................................... 4‐2  Chapter 5 Results .............................................................................................................................. 5‐1  Archaeological Investigations ................................................................................................. 5‐1  Kirkland Ave NE between 15th and 16th .................................................................. 5‐1  2902 NE 12th Street .................................................................................................. 5‐1  1104 Harrington Avenue NE ...................................................................................... 5‐1  Historic Resources Survey ...................................................................................................... 5‐2  Summary of Results ................................................................................................................ 5‐2  Chapter 6 Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 6‐1  Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................. 7‐1  Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 7‐1  Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 7‐1  City of Renton  Contents     Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood ii February 2011 ICF 00593.10   Chapter 8 References ........................................................................................................................ 8‐1    Appendix A. Photographs  Appendix B. Shovel Test Data  Appendix C. Unanticipated Discovery Plan    Tables  Table 3‐1. Cultural Resources Surveys within 1 Mile of the Area of Potential Effects ............................ 3‐1    Figures    Figure 1‐1. Project Location ............................................................................................................................................ 1‐3  Figure 1‐2. Area of Potential Effects ............................................................................................................................ 1‐4  Figure 5‐1. Shovel Test Locations at Kirkland Avenue NE Site ........................................................................ 5‐3  Figure 5‐2. Shovel Test Locations at 2902 NE 12th Street Site ........................................................................ 5‐4  Figure 5‐3. Shovel Test Locations at 1104 Harrington Avenue NE Site ........................................................ 5‐5    City of Renton  Contents     Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood iii February 2011 ICF 00593.10   Acronyms and Abbreviations    APE  Area of Potential Effects  APN  Assessor Parcel Number  BP  before present  CFR  Code of Federal Regulations  City  City of Renton  DAHP  Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation  GPS  global positioning system  HUD  U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development  NEPA  National Environmental Policy Act  NHPA  National Historic Preservation Act  NRHP  National Register of Historic Places  RHA  Renton Housing Authority  SEPA  Washington State Environmental Policy Act  SHPO  State Historic Preservation Officer  USC  United States Code  WHR  Washington Heritage Register  WISAARD  Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records  Database        Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 1‐1 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   Chapter 1  Introduction  Project Description  The City of Renton (City) and the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) are proposing a series of  activities to revitalize an area known as the Sunset Area Community, located in the vicinity of NE  Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) east of Interstate 405 in the city of Renton, Washington. The activities  would include the redevelopment of three separate properties in the Sunset Terrace neighborhood  (proposed projects). Each of the proposed projects is anticipated to receive federal funding from the  U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD is the lead federal agency  responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16  United States Code [USC] 470 et seq.). In accordance with specific statutory authority and HUD’s  regulations at Section 24 Part 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the City is completing the  necessary environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC  4321–4347) and Section 106 of the NHPA. ICF International (ICF) conducted a cultural resources  study for each of the three projects, consolidated in this report, to assist the City in fulfilling these  requirements. The studies comprised archaeological investigations and historic resources surveys at  each of the three project sites.  The proposed projects would take place at three locations: on Kirkland Avenue NE between 15th  and 16th streets; at 2902 NE 12th Street; and 1104 Harrington Avenue NE. Parcels at each of these  locations would be redeveloped for either multifamily housing units, or, in the case of the  Harrington Avenue NE property, potentially a building intended for institutional use (e.g.,  government office).   Project Background  Personnel  Christopher Hetzel, MA, architectural historian, served as cultural lead for this project and principal  investigator for the consideration of built environment resources. J. Tait Elder, MA, archaeologist,  was principal investigator for archaeology. Alexander Stevenson led the field crew during the  archaeological investigations. Melissa Cascella, MA, assisted the principal investigators in drafting  this cultural resources survey report, and Patrick Reed assisted with the field investigation and  literature search.  Location  The proposed projects are located in the city of Renton, King County, Washington, in the Northwest  Quarter of Section 9, Township 23, Range 5 East (Figure 1‐1). It is in an area known as the Sunset  Area Community, situated in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard, east of Interstate 405. The project  activities would include redevelopment of the following properties:  City of Renton  Introduction   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 1‐2 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   z the Renton Highlands Library property at 2902 Northeast 12th Street (Assessor Parcel Number  [APN]: 7227802040);  z vacant lots on Kirkland Avenue between NE 15th and NE 16th streets (APNs: 7227800200,  7227800185 and 7227800190.; and   z Sunset Court Park at 1104 Harrington Avenue NE (APN: 7227801781)   Area of Potential Effects  The Area of Potential Effects (APE) is defined as the geographic area or areas within which the  proposed projects may directly or indirectly cause change of character or use of historic properties  (i.e., archaeological sites, traditional cultural properties, and/or built environment resources). It  includes the horizontal and vertical extents of the project activities at the three project sites (Figure  1‐2). The depth of the anticipated ground disturbance would vary depending on the design the  proposed development.   Regulatory Context  Federal, state, and local regulations recognize the public’s interest in cultural resources and the  public benefit of preserving them. These laws and regulations require analysts to consider how a  project might affect cultural resources and to take steps to avoid or reduce potential damage to  them. A cultural resource can be considered as any property valued (e.g., monetarily, aesthetically,  religiously) by a group of people. Valued properties can be historical in character or date to the  prehistoric past (i.e., the time prior to written records).  The proposed projects require federal funding and, therefore, must satisfy the requirements  established under NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA. The NHPA is the primary mandate governing  projects under federal jurisdiction that might affect cultural resources. The purpose of this report is  to identify and evaluate cultural resources in the APE, fulfilling the requirements of NEPA and  Section 106 of the NHPA, and to assess the potential effects of the proposed projects on cultural  resources.  Federal  National Environmental Policy Act  NEPA requires the federal government to carry out its plans and programs in such a way as to  preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage by considering,  among other things, unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or  cultural resources (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(3)) and the degree to which the action may adversely affect  districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register  of Historic Places (NRHP) (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(8)). Although NEPA does not define standards  specific to cultural resource impact analyses, the implementing regulations of NEPA (40 CFR  1502.25) state that, to the fullest extent possible, “agencies shall prepare draft environmental  impact statements concurrently with and integrated with environmental impact analyses and  related surveys and studies required by…the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC  470 et seq.).”     Figure 1-1 Project Location and Area of Potential Effects Cultural Resources Survey Report - Development of Three Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood Source: City of Renton; USGS 00593.10/GIS - Revised: 2/18/2011City Limits Area of Potential Effects 0 1,000 2,000 Feet 0 200 400 Meters NE 12TH ST EDMONDS AVE NENE SUNSET BLVDNE 16TH STLYNNWOOD AVE NEKIRKLAND AVE NEJEFFERSON AVE NEINDEX AVE NESUNSET LN NENE 15TH ST HARRINGTON AVE NEGLENWOOD AVE NEH I L LCR E S T L N NE MONROE AVE NEEDMONDS AVE NEHARRINGTON AVE N ENE SUNSET BLVDNE 16TH STINDEX AVE NE EDMONDS AVE NEN E S U N SE T B L V D S U N SET LN NE Figure 1-2 Area of Potential Effects Cultural Resources Survey Report - Development of Three Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood Source: City of Renton; USDA (2009)00593.10/GIS - Revised: 2/18/2011City Limits Area of Potential Effects 0 200 400 Feet 0 50 100 Meters City of Renton  Introduction   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 1‐5 February 2011 ICF 00593.10     Although NEPA statutes and implementing regulations do not contain detailed information  concerning cultural resource impact analyses, Section 106 of the NHPA, with which NEPA must be  coordinated, details standards and processes for such analyses. The implementing regulations of  Section 106 states, “Agency officials should ensure that preparation of an environmental assessment  (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or an EIS and record of decision (ROD) includes  appropriate scoping, identification of historic properties, assessment of effects upon them, and  consultation leading to resolution of any adverse effects” (36 CFR 800.8[a][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 both;  NEPA and Section 106 compliance should be coordinated and completed simultaneously. This  practice is followed in the present analysis.  Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act  Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the effects of undertakings (acts which are  federally funded, approved, or take place on federally administered lands) that have the potential to  affect any district, site, building, structure, or object that is listed or is eligible for listing in the NRHP.  Under Section 106, the lead federal agency must provide an opportunity for the State Historic  Preservation Officer (SHPO), affected tribes, and other stakeholders to comment. Pursuant to the  HUD’s regulations at 24 CFR 58, the City is authorized to assume responsibility for environmental  review, decision making, and action that would otherwise apply HUD under NEPA, which includes  NEPA lead agency responsibility. The Section 106 process is codified in 36 CFR 800 and consists of  four basic steps:  1. Initiation of the process by coordinating with other environmental reviews, consultation with  the SHPO, identification and consultation with interested parties, and identification of points in  the process to seek input from the public and to notify the public of proposed actions.  2. Identification of cultural resources and evaluation of these resources for NRHP eligibility (the  process for which is explained below), resulting in the identification of historic properties.  3. Assessment of effects of the project on historic properties.  4. Resolution of adverse affects which includes continued consultation with SHPO/Tribal Historic  Preservation Officer and other interested parties and mitigation measures, such as public  outreach or data recovery excavation.  An adverse effect on a historic property is found when an activity may alter, directly or indirectly,  any of the characteristics of the historic property that render it eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.  The alteration of characteristics is considered an adverse effect if it may diminish the integrity of the  historic property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. The  assessment of effects on historic properties is conducted in accordance with the guidelines set forth  in 36 CFR 800.5.  National Register of Historic Places  First authorized by the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the NRHP was established by the NHPA as “an  authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments; private groups; and citizens  to identify the nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for  City of Renton  Introduction   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 1‐6 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   protection from destruction or impairment.” The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at  the national, state, and local levels, based on the following evaluation criteria (National Register of  Historic Places 1997):   A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of  our history; or   B. That are associated with the lives of significant persons in or past; or   C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that  represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and  distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or   D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.   The guidelines further state that “Ordinarily, birthplaces, cemeteries, or graves of historical figures;  properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes; structures that have been  moved from their original locations; reconstructed historic buildings; properties primarily  commemorative in nature; and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years  are not considered eligible for the NRHP”, unless they satisfy certain conditions.  The NRHP requires that a resource not only meet one of these criteria, but that it must also possess  integrity. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey historical significance. The evaluation of a  resource’s integrity must be grounded in an understanding of that resource’s physical  characteristics and how those characteristics relate to its significance. The NRHP recognizes seven  aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define the integrity of a property, including:  location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.   An adverse effect on a historic property is found when an activity may alter, directly or indirectly,  any of the characteristics of the historic property that render it eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.  The alteration of characteristics is considered an adverse effect if it could diminish the integrity of  the historic property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. The  assessment of effects on historic properties is conducted in accordance with the guidelines set forth  in 36 CFR 800.5.  State  Washington State Environmental Policy Act  The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that all major actions sponsored,  funded, permitted, or approved by state and/or local agencies be planned so that environmental  considerations—such as impacts on cultural resources—are considered when state‐agency‐enabled  projects affect properties of historical, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance (Washington  Administrative Code 197‐11‐960). These regulations closely resemble NEPA.   Under SEPA, the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) is  the specified agency with the technical expertise to consider the effects of a proposed action on  cultural resources and to provide formal recommendations to local governments and other state  agencies for appropriate treatments or actions. The degree to which an action may adversely affect  districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP is the  primary criterion for determining significant impacts under SEPA. Secondary criteria include  whether an alternative has the potential to affect districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects  City of Renton  Introduction   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 1‐7 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   listed in or eligible for listing in the Washington Heritage Register (WHR), the state equivalent of the  NRHP.  Washington Heritage Register  The WHR is an official listing of historically significant sites and properties found throughout the  state. The list is maintained by DAHP and includes districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects  that have been identified and documented as being significant in local or state history, architecture,  archaeology, engineering or culture. To qualify for placement on the WHR, the resource must meet  the following criteria.  z A building, site, structure or object must be at least 50 years old. If newer, the resource should  have documented exceptional significance.  z The resource should have a high to medium level of integrity (i.e., it should retain important  character‐defining features from its historic period of construction).  z The resource should have documented historical significance at the local, state, or federal level.  Sites listed on the NRHP are automatically added to the WHR; hence, a separate nomination form  does not need to be completed.   Governor’s Executive Order 05‐05  Washington State Executive Order 05‐05—which requires state agencies with capital improvement  projects to integrate DAHP, the Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs, and concerned tribes into their  capital project planning processes—was signed into action by Governor Chris Gregoire in November  2005. All state agency capital construction projects or land acquisitions, not otherwise reviewed  under federal law, must comply with this executive order, if the projects or acquisitions have the  potential to affect cultural resources. Agencies with projects or acquisitions subject to review under  the executive order must consult with DAHP and concerned tribes and invite their participation in  project planning. If cultural resources are present, then reasonable steps to avoid, minimize, or  mitigate potential effects must be taken.  Other Archaeological Resource Laws  Other state laws that govern the protection of archaeological resources include:  z RCW 27.44, Indian Graves and Records, provides protection for Native American graves and  burial grounds, encourages voluntary reporting of said sites when they are discovered, and  mandates a penalty for disturbance or desecration of such sites.  z RCW 27.53, Archaeological Sites and Resources, governs the protection and preservation of  archaeological sites and resources and establishes DAHP as the administering agency for these  regulations.  z RCW 36.70A.020 includes a goal to “Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and  structures that have historical, cultural, and archaeological significance.” Cities planning under  the Washington State Growth Management Act must consider and incorporate this historic  preservation goal.   z RCW 68.60, Abandoned and Historic Cemeteries and Historic Graves, provides for the protection  and preservation of abandoned and historic cemeteries and historic graves.  City of Renton  Introduction   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 1‐8 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   Local  The City currently does not have a local historic preservation ordinance.    Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 2‐1 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   Chapter 2  Environmental and Cultural Setting  Environmental Setting  Geologic Background  The APE is located within the Puget Lowland, a structural and topographic basin that lies between  the Cascade Range and Olympic Mountains. The modern topography of the Puget Lowland is  primarily the result of surface scouring and moraine formation caused by the most recent glacial  advance, known as the Vashon stade of the Fraser glaciation, which took place between 14,000 and  20,000 years before present (BP) (Booth et al. 2009; Easterbrook 2003). As a result of this glacial  activity, the APE is characterized as a moderately glacial drift upland, composed of glacial till  (Mullineaux 1965). In the modern era, the surface of the APE has been modified to accommodate for  development.   Flora and Fauna  The APE is located in the Puget Sound area subtype western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)  vegetation zone. Softwoods such as Douglas‐fir (Pseudotsuga menzesii), western hemlock, and  western red cedar (Thuja plicata) are the dominant tree species in the region; hardwoods such as  red alder (Alnus rubra) and bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) are generally subordinate and found  near water courses or riparian habitats. Garry oak (Quercus garryana) groves are found at lower  elevations. In some areas, stands of pines (Pinus spp.) are major forest constituents, along with  Douglas‐fir (Franklin and Dyrness 1988:72). Understory shrubs with potential food and resource  value in the western hemlock zone include, but are not limited to, swordfern (Polystichum muritum),  bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium), vine maple (Acer  circinatum), huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.), blackberry (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 Setting  Precontact  Cultural developments in the Puget Sound area have been summarized by a number of reviewers  (Kidd 1964; Greengo and Houston 1970; Nelson 1990; Larson and Lewarch 1995; Ames and  Maschner 1999; Blukis Onat et al. 2001; Forsman and Lewarch 2001), and most recently by Kopperl  (2004). The archaeological record and cultural histories of the prehistory of Puget Sound and  City of Renton  Environmental and Cultural Setting   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 2‐2 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   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).  z Paleo‐Indian Period (11,000 to 8,000 BP). Generalized resource development in a post‐glacial  environment. Site contents consist of large lithic bifaces and bone technology.  z Early Period (8,000 to 5,000 BP). Inland sites with lithic artifacts, rarely found with associated  plant or animal remains, or hearth structures.  z Middle Period (5,000 BP to 2,500 BP). Increase socioeconomic complexity, exploitation of a wider  range of environments, and utilization of marine resources.  z Late Period (2,500 BP to European contact). The establishment of large semi‐sedentary  populations, increased diversity of hunting, fishing, plant processing, and woodworking tools,  followed by European contact.  Ethnographic and Ethnohistoric  Ethnographic information recorded during the early part of the twentieth century indicates that the  APE is located within the territory of a Native American group traditionally known as the  Duwamish. The Duwamish people traditonally spoke the Southern Lushootseed language, which is  one of two Coast Salish languages spoken in the Puget Sound (Suttles and Lane 1990:486). They  inhabited areas that encompassed Salmon Bay, Lake Union, Portage Bay, Union Bay, Lake  Washington, and their tributary streams (Blukis Onat and Kiers 2007:6).   The Duwamish people hunted deer, elk, bear, ducks, geese, and other game animals and waterfowl,  when available. Inland of the Puget Sound, they fished for salmon when available (Duwamish Tribe  2010). Plant foods such as sprouts, roots, bulbs, berries, and nuts were collected as well (Suttles and  Lane 1990:489) Although ethnographic village locations and place names are documented south of  the APE along the Cedar River, no ethnographically documented villages or place names are known  to exist within the the APE (Hilbert et al. 2001)  European American settlement of the Puget Sound area in the 1850s severely disrupted the  Duwamish way of life. Early contact between the Duwamish and European Americans was cordial,  and the Duwamish were essential to the survival of many early settlers. As the city of Seattle and the  surrounding towns grew, natural resources on which the Duwamish relied became increasingly  scarce and other traditional areas became inaccessible as a result of development. Further urban  expansion, combined with the banning of native urban residence in 1865, resulted in many of the  Duwamish people moving away from, or being forced out of, the Seattle area. Many of the Duwamish  people went to reservations where they had relatives, including the Muckleshoot, Suquamish,  Tulalip, Lummi, or Snoqualmie reservations (Blukis Onat et al. 2005). Today, some of the  descendents of the Duwamish people are now members of several federally recognized tribes in  including the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Suquamish, Tulalip Tribe of Indians, and Snoqualmie Tribe,  whereas others remain enrolled with the Duwamish Tribe, although it is not a federally recognized  tribe (Duwamish Tribe 2010).  City of Renton  Environmental and Cultural Setting   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 2‐3 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   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 (Buerge 1989:22–24; City of Renton 1989:4). Tobin,  together with three partners, subsequently established the Duwamish Coal Company and built the  area’s first sawmill to obtain the lumber necessary for the mining tunnel supports. The sawmill was  in operation by 1854, but conflicts with Native American groups in the region soon caused an end to  this early business venture (Buerge 1989:22).  Over the few short years of European American settlement in the Puget Sound area, Native  Americans had witnessed areas important to their traditional lifeways occupied and altered by the  new settlers (Thrush 2007:79–80). After establishment of the Washington Territory in 1853, the  new territorial governor began drafting agreements that required the removal of the area’s  remaining Native American populations, to make the land available for further European American  settlement. Enacted in two councils called the Medicine Creek Treaty and the Point Elliott Treaty,  the agreements called for lands to be handed over to the state in exchange for rights to traditional  gathering areas, money and the relocation of native peoples to designated reservations (Buchanan  1859; Buerge 1989:22–23; Pierce 1855; Slauson 2006:3).  After signing the Point Elliot Treaty, local tribal chief Keokuck returned to the Black River area to  find his people deeply divided between feelings of friendship to settlers they knew in the area, and  feelings of resentment and betrayal for being forced to surrender their traditional homelands.  Several regional tribes, including the Yakama and Wenatchee, united together to confront  encroaching settlers, resulting in the conflict referred to as the Yakima Indian War of 1855. Crossing  the mountains, warriors raided settlements and even launched an attack on the city of Seattle itself.  After the Treaty of Point Elliott was ratified by Congress in 1859, the remaining Duwamish living  along the Black River were forced from their land and relocated to reservations (Buerge 1989:23).  The Birth of Renton  After the signing of the Treaty of Point Elliott and the forced removal of the native Duwamish, an  increasing number of settlers entered the area (Buerge 1989:23). In 1856, Erasmus M. Smithers  acquired Tobin’s earlier claim by marrying his widow, and purchased an additional 160 acres in  1857 (Buerge 1989:24; City of Renton 1989:4; Slauson 2006:2). Smithers’ substantial land holdings  eventually became the center of a burgeoning community that would eventually form the city of  Renton. During the 1860s, several additional families settled in the area, and schools and a post  office were established.  Rich deposits of coal found in the mountains surrounding the small community in the 1860s and  1870s furthered its prosperity. Wealthy entrepreneurs, such as Captain William Renton, took  interest in the area. Renton, who had built an enormous and prosperous sawmill on Bainbridge  Island, invested heavily in the area’s coal and transportation industries. These investments allowed  the fledgling community’s economy to boom (Buerge 1989:24–27; Slauson 2006:6).  In 1875, Smithers and two partners filed the town plat for the new community and named it Renton  in honor of the investor’s financial backer (The Boeing Company et al. 2001:5; Buerge 1989:27; City  of Renton 1989:4; Slauson 2006:7). The coal‐mining and logging industries continued to draw new  City of Renton  Environmental and Cultural Setting   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 2‐4 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   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 established during this period,  supplying steel, pig iron, and other equipment for the production of railroad boxcars, tanks, and  later, wing spans for aircraft. The company acquired Kenworth Motor Trucks in 1945 and Peterbilt  Motors in 1958, merging them into one company called PACCAR in 1972 (City of Renton 1989:5).  One of the greatest influences on the development of Renton occurred during World War II with the  establishment of the Boeing Company aircraft manufacturing plant at the south end of Lake  Washington (City of Renton 1989:6). Built in 1940, the Renton Boeing plant manufactured B‐29  Superfortress bombers and increased exponentially in size through the course of the war (The  Boeing Company 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 population increases, and the federal government  provided nearly $4 million in funds for the construction of new housing alone (Buerge 1989:75–79).  Boeing continued to play a prominent role in Renton’s economy through the rest of the twentieth  century, producing commercial airplanes including the 737, 747, 757, and 767 and employing as  many 25,000 (City of Renton 1989:6). Today, Renton’s economy is shifting towards a greater  economic diversification with technology firms, microbreweries, and the Wizards of the Coast, a  game and card company, emerging as important sectors of the economy (The Boeing Company et al.  2001:19; Buerge 1989:88).  Renton Highlands  Despite Renton’s rapid growth in the early twentieth century, the area encompassing the APE  remained largely undeveloped until the 1940s. The area was logged starting in 1883 (Slauson  2006:42) and Primary State Highway 2 (PSH 2), later known as the Sunset Highway or SR 900, was  established just south of the APE from 1909 through 1910. The route was first paved in 1920,  becoming the principal highway between Seattle and the Snoqualmie Pass prior to the construction  of the Lake Washington Floating Bridge in 1940 (Buerge 1989:67; Morning Olympian 1909:3).  Although development in Renton’s downtown grew with the arrival of the highway, the area in the  vicinity of the APE remained primarily rural. With the arrival of the Renton Boeing plant and its tens  City of Renton  Environmental and Cultural Setting   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 2‐5 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   of thousands of workers in the 1940s, however, housing development exploded. Many of Renton’s  existing residential neighborhoods were first established during World War II.  During World War II, population migrations to urban centers combined with the rapid development  of wartime industries caused increasing demand for housing that was much greater than in prior  decades (Madison 1971:i–ii). Although the Federal Housing Administration was initially created  during the 1930s, it was not until the postwar era that the federal government enacted “the most  significant housing legislation ever passed” to meet the growing housing needs (Lord 1977:10). In  the Housing Act of 1949, a goal was set by the federal government to provide “a decent home and  suitable living environment for every American family” (Lord 1977:10). The act outlined an  ambitious goal, authorizing the construction of 810,000 new homes over the next 6 years (Lord  1977:10).  In Renton, the federal government embarked on a series of housing projects (Buerge 1989:75).  Known as the “Highlands” south of the highway and as the “North Highlands” north of the highway,  the development of these two neighborhoods relied heavily on federal loans, grants, and other  programs (City of Renton 1989:34). During this period, the Highlands development centered on  housing projects while the North Highlands constructed a mix of commercial and multi‐use family  housing along the highway (City of Renton 1989:34–35).  Overnight, retail and social services emerged to serve the bustling new community. The Highlands  area received its own post office and fire station in the fall of 1943 (Slauson 2006:45, 85), and a  large recreational complex complete with tennis courts, ball fields, and a small gymnasium was  completed in 1949 (Slauson 2006:81). Later improvements included the move of a prominent  Methodist church from downtown Renton to the Highlands area in 1958 and construction of a new  branch of the library in 1979 (Slauson 2006:62, 97). By 1975, the area was almost fully developed  (City of Renton 1989:34–35; Renton History Museum 1975).      Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 3‐1 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   Chapter 3  Literature Review and Consultation  Existing Data and Background Data  Records Research  A record search was conducted using the Washington Information System for Architectural and  Archaeological Records Database (WISAARD) to identify previously documented archaeological,  ethnographic, and historic resources within 1 mile of the APE. WISAARD contains all records and  reports on file with DAHP recorded since 1995. No previously completed cultural resources studies  and no previously documented archaeological sites are located in the APE.   One historic resource, the building at 2615 NE Sunset Boulevard, was previously identified within 1  mile of the APE. The building’s NRHP eligibility was not previously evaluated. Eleven previously  completed cultural resources surveys and one archaeological site were identified within a 1‐mile  radius of the APE boundary. A summary of these cultural resources studies is provided in Table 3‐1.  Table 3‐1. Cultural Resources Surveys within 1 Mile of the Area of Potential Effects  NADB #  Authors/Year  Report Title  Description  Cultural Resources  1339887  Juell 2001  Cultural  Resources  Inventory of the  proposed  Washington Light  Lanes Project  Literature search  and windshield  survey of I‐405  corridor  None  1352447  Bundy 2008  Interstate 405  Corridor Survey:  Phase I Interstate  5 to State Route  169  Improvements  Project  Survey of I‐405  corridor and  shovel testing  None  1351994  Goetz 2008  Archaeological  Assessment,  Dayton Avenue  NE/NE 22nd  Street  Stormwater  System Project  Excavated a total  of six shovel  probes  None  1353126  Chatters 2009  Recovery of Two  Early 20th  Century Graves  from Renton, WA  Exhumed remains  of young male and  older probable  female from  residential area  Site 45KI686; NRHP  eligible, but site  completely  removed through  excavation  1348842  Hodges 2007a  Cultural  Resources  Monitoring of 20,  4 inch bore holes  None  City of Renton  Literature Review and Consultation   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 3‐2 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   NADB #  Authors/Year  Report Title  Description  Cultural Resources  Assessment for  the Proposed  Lowe’s of Renton  through fill 1349666  Stipe 2007  Verizon Wireless  SEA Renton Voc‐ Tech Cellular  Tower Cultural  Resources Review  Records search  and pedestrian  archaeological  survey  None  1349929  Miss 2007  Archaeological  Monitoring for  the South Lake  Washington  Roadway  Improvement  Project  Monitoring of  excavated  trenches  None  1349789  Hodges 2007b  Archaeological  Resource  Assessment for  the South Lake  Washington  Roadway  Improvement  Project  29 backhoe  trenches  excavated through  fill  None  1340681  Cooper 2001  Antennas on an  Existing  Transmission  Tower 12612  Southeast 96th  Street  Survey around  footprint of  transmission  tower and one  shovel test  None  1354969  Elder et al. 2010  Cultural  Resources Survey  Report – Potential  Sunset Terrace  Redevelopment  Subarea and NE  Sunset Boulevard  Archaeological  pedestrian survey;  excavation of  shovel probes;  and historic  resources survey  NRHP eligible  property identified  at 2825 NE Sunset  Boulevard  NADB = National Archaeological Database  One known archaeological site is located within a 1‐mile radius of the APE. Site 45KI686 is a  disturbed historic internment, which contained European‐American remains in a coffin (Rooke  2008). The site is located northwest of the APE. The NRHP eligible property at 2825 NE Sunset  Boulevard consists of a former Safeway supermarket building, situated southeast of the APE. It is  eligible under NRHP Criterion C for its architectural design.   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 4‐1 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   Chapter 4  Research Design  Objectives and Expectations  Review of existing archaeological records of the area within 1 mile of the APE reveals that all known  archaeological sites are located in areas for which the geomorphology indicates a high probability  for containing precontact archaeological sites (e.g., floodplains and lake margins). In contrast, the  APE is located on a glacial till plain, which has a low probability for precontact archaeological sites.  Precontact archaeological sites on upland terraces tend to be very old relative to valley floor sites,  and contain lithic artifacts, with rare instances of bone or plant remains.  Analysis of previous geologic research conducted in the vicinity of the APE reveals that sediments  deposited during the Pleistocene epoch should be encountered at or near the modern ground  surface in areas that have not been modified in the historic or modern period. Since there is only  evidence for human occupation in the Puget Sound area during the Holocene epoch, all cultural  materials should be encountered on or just below ground surface in areas that have not been  modified during the historic or modern period, or at the fill/naturally deposited sediment interface  in areas that have been filled during the historic and modern period.   Given the examination of the existing archaeological and geologic information, the likelihood for  encountering prehistoric archaeological sites was considered very low. It was expected that any  precontact archaeological sites encountered during archaeological investigations would be surface  lithic scatters. Where topsoil has been removed, it was expected that no archaeological materials  would be encountered.  Research Methods  Archaeological Investigations  ICF archaeologists conducted a cultural resources survey of the APE, using standard DAHP‐accepted  methods appropriate for finding and recording cultural resources. The field survey included walking  20 meter transects across each of the three parts of the APE and excavating shovel tests to find  exposed and buried archaeological deposits and historic features. The purpose of this survey was to  identify any visible archaeological materials and to characterize the vertical extent of each of the  three parts of the APE. Shovel test pits (50 centimeters in diameter) were excavated in areas not  covered in asphalt, concrete, buildings, or other impenetrable modern features. The pits were  excavated to the depth of Pleistocene sediments or dense gravel deposits of obstructing rocks, when  encountered. In some shovel tests, excavations exceeded the depth of Pleistocene sediments. These  units were excavated to confirm that Pleistocene sediments had not been redeposited over younger  Holocene‐aged sediments. All shovel tests were excavated by hand and sediments screened through  6‐millimeter (0.25‐inch) mesh hardware cloth. Upon completion of excavation, shovel tests were  photographed using a digital camera and backfilled.   City of Renton  Research Design   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 4‐2 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   Representative photographs are presented in Appendix A. Shovel tests were mapped using a  Trimble GeoXH global positioning system (GPS) unit.   Historical Resources Survey  The historic resources survey involved examining and photographing buildings and structures in  the APE determined to be 45 years of age or older. None were identified in the APE.       Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 5‐1 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   Chapter 5  Results  Archaeological Investigations  On February 2, 2011, ICF archaeologists Alexander E. Stevenson and Patrick Reed conducted an  archaeological investigation of the three parts of the APE, under the supervision of J. Tait Elder, MA.  The investigation included pedestrian survey of each of the parcels and the excavation of 12 shovel  test pits (Figure 5‐1). A summary of these shovel tests is included in Appendix A.   Kirkland Ave NE between 15th and 16th  A pedestrian survey revealed no surface evidence of archaeological deposits.  Five shovel tests were excavated in this portion of the APE (STP1–STP5). Three of these STPs (1–3)  consisted of a weakly developed “A” horizon, in approximately 20 centimeters of coarse sand with  rounded gravels. Below this, approximately 30 centimeters of a dark gray to black coarse sand with  modern debris, such as bottle glass and brick fragments, were observed. These shovel tests were  terminated in coarse olive brown sand with rounded gravels, indicative of glacial outwash. STPs 4  and 5 were similar in sediment characteristics but no modern debris layer was encountered within  them. These STPs were terminated in gray brown glacial outwash which exhibited no evidence of  soil development.   2902 NE 12th Street  A portion of this parcel was covered by asphalt, concrete, and a building, which impeded excavation.  Pedestrian survey revealed no surface evidence of archaeological deposits.  Two shovel test pits were excavated in this portion of the APE (STP6 and STP7). Highly compacted,  gray glacial till was encountered at a depth of 9 centimeters below ground surface in STP 6. This  sediment was not encountered in STP 7, which consisted of approximately 60 centimeters of fill,  with a weakly developed “A” horizon. Below this fill level was coarse brown or olive brown sand  with rounded gravels that extended to a depth of greater than 150 centimeters below ground  surface and represented glacial outwash sediments. Weathering characteristic of a “B” horizon was  noted throughout this profile, indicating that sediments probably represented a fill event. Gray  brown glacial outwash sediments were noted from 150 to 175 centimeters below ground surface in  this shovel test pit.  No cultural resources were observed within either of these shovel test pits.  1104 Harrington Avenue NE  A pedestrian survey revealed no surface evidence of archaeological deposits.  Five shovel test pits were excavated in this area (STP8–STP12). A weakly developed “A” horizon was  present at the top of each STP, followed by a layer of dark gray or black sediment with modern and  historic debris. This debris included bottle glass fragments, brick fragments, and miscellaneous  City of Renton  Results   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 5‐2 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   metal. Based on the presence of melted glass and charcoal this debris had at some point been  burned. Coarse brown sand with rounded gravels, representing glacial outwash sediments, was  observed below this debris layer. Weathering characteristic of a “B” horizon was noted in three STPs  (10, 11, and 12) to a depth of approximately 65 centimeters below ground surface. Evidence of this  soil development was not observed within the other STPs (8 and 9) as a result of historic and  modern debris. STP 8 was terminated on highly compacted sediment. The remaining STPs were  terminated in gray brown glacial outwash which exhibited no evidence of soil development.   Historic Resources Survey  The reconnaissance‐level historic resources survey revealed the presence of only one developed  property within the APE. This property was the Renton Highlands Library located at 2902 NE 12th  Street. The building is less than 50 years old, according to the King County Tax Assessor.  Summary of Results  A pedestrian survey of the APE revealed no surface evidence of archaeological deposits. Shovel test  pit excavations revealed the presence of modern/historic fill events in two portions of the APE  (Kirkland Avenue NE and 1104 Harrington Avenue NE). A weakly developed “A” horizon was noted  in each of the three portions of the APE, and the presence of “B” horizons developed within glacial  outwash sediments was also noted in each location. A heavy amount of landscape disturbance was  noted as evidenced by soil development and debris deposits in fill contexts.   No NRHP‐eligible buildings were identified within the APE.  ST5 ST4 ST3 ST2 ST1 KIRKLAND AVE NENE 16TH STNE 15TH ST JEFFERSON AVE NEHILLCREST LN NE NE 15TH PL N E 1 8 T H S T NE 19TH PL Figure 5-1 Shovel Test Locations at Kirkland Avenue NE Site Cultural Resources Survey Report - Development of Three Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood Source: City of Renton; USDA (2009)00593.10/GIS - Revised: 2/18/2011Area of Potential Effects Shovel Test Pit 0 100 200 Feet 0 20 40 Meters ST7 ST6 NE 12TH STHARRINGTON AVE NEJEFFERSON AVE NEINDEX AVE NEN E 13TH STHARRINGTON PL NESUNSET LN NE GLENWOOD AVE NE NE 13TH ST Figure 5-2 Shovel Test Locations at 2902 NE 12th Street Site Cultural Resources Survey Report - Development of Three Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood Source: City of Renton; USDA (2009)00593.10/GIS - Revised: 2/18/2011Area of Potential Effects Shovel Test Pit 0 100 200 Feet 0 20 40 Meters ST9 ST8 ST12 ST11 ST10 NE 12TH ST HARRINGTON AVE NESUNSET LN NENE 10TH STGLENWOOD AVE NEHARRINGTON PL NENE SUNSET BLVDSUNSET LN N E Figure 5-3 Shovel Test Locations at 1150 Harrington Avenue NE Site Cultural Resources Survey Report - Development of Three Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood Source: City of Renton; USDA (2009)00593.10/GIS - Revised: 2/18/2011Area of Potential Effects Shovel Test Pit 0 100 200 Feet 0 20 40 Meters     Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 6‐1 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   Chapter 6  Analysis  Archaeological investigations in all three portions of the APE revealed that the modern ground  surface has been heavily modified. The parcels on Kirkland Avenue were bulldozed after RHA took  ownership of the land (Mcarty pers. comm.). The presence of weakly developed “A” horizons in each  site with little to no other soil development indicates the removal or disturbance of previously  developed soils at each location. The presence of historic and modern debris in fill context provides  further evidence that the APE is a heavily modified and disturbed landscape. The sediments in which  the “B” horizon formed consist of moderately compacted gravelly silty sand, indicating its likely  origin as glacial outwash rather than glacial till. Since the sediments within which soil formation  occurred were deposited during the Pleistocene epoch, a period for which there is no record of  human occupation in the Puget Sound, excavations were terminated once an intact “B” horizon was  encountered. Because all visible surface within the lot has been modified, archaeological excavations  revealed weakly developed or absent “A” horizons, and Pleistocene‐age sediments are found just  below ground surface, the likelihood of discovering intact cultural resources at any of the sites is  considered very low, and any discovery would be on or just below the surface.     Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 7‐1 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   Chapter 7  Conclusions and Recommendations  Conclusions  No archaeological sites were identified during the archaeological survey of the APE. Archaeological  excavations at each of the sites revealed mixed or imported sediments or soils that would not have  the potential to contain archaeological resources. The potential for the discovery of archaeological  deposits with in the APE is considered very low.  No NRHP‐eligible buildings were observed in the APE.  Based on the cultural resources investigations, the proposed projects would have no effect on any  known NRHP‐eligible archaeological resources or historic resources in the APE.  Recommendations  Because a predevelopment “A” horizon was not identified in the APE, no further archaeological  investigations are recommended. If archaeological materials are discovered during ground‐ disturbing excavations, the contractor will halt excavations in the vicinity of the find and contact  DAHP. For DAHP contact information, see the Unanticipated Discovery Plan (Appendix B).   If human skeletal remains are discovered, the King County Sheriff and DAHP will be notified  immediately. If archaeological materials are uncovered during excavation, the proponent will  immediately stop work and notify the City, DAHP, and affected Indian tribes, as outlined in the  Unanticipated Discovery Plan (Appendix B).          Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 8‐1 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   Chapter 8  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 stuwe'yuqw—Site 45KI464—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 Onat, A. R. and R. A. Kiers  2007 Ethnohistoric and Geoarchaeological Study of the SR 520 Corridor and Archaeological  Field Investigations in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Project including the Pacific  Interchange and Second Montlake Bridge Option, King County, Washington. Report on file at  Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle, WA.  The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton  2001 Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901–2001. King County Journal Newspaper, Kent,  Washington.  Booth, D. B., K. G. Troost, and S. A. Schimel  2009  Geologic Map of Northeastern Seattle (Part of the Seattle North 7.5’x15’ Quadrangle),  King County, Washington. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston,  Virginia.  Buchanan, James  1859  Treaty between the United States and the Duwamish, Suquamish, and Other Allied and  Subordinate Tribes of Indians in Washington Territory: January 22, 1855, ratified April 11,  1859. Available:  <http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/lctext&CISOPTR=15 92&REC=16>. Accessed October 12, 2010.  Buerge, David M.  1989 Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, California: Windsor Publications, Inc.  Bundy, Barbara E.  2008   Interstate 405 Corridor Survey: Phase I Interstate 5 to State Route 169 Improvements  Project. Report No. 08‐23, Cultural Resources Program. Seattle, WA. Prepared by  Washington State Department of Transportation, Environmental Services Office.  City of Renton  References   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 8‐2 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   Chatters, James  2009 Recovery of Two Early 20th Century Graves from Renton, Washington. AMEC Project No.  8‐915‐16415‐0. Bothell, WA. Prepared for James H. Jacques Construction by AMEC Earth &  Environmental, Inc.  City of Renton Department of Community Development, Long Range Planning Section  1989 Community Profile. Renton Department of Community Development, Renton,  Washington.  Cooper, Jason  2001 Antennas on an Existing Transmission Tower 12612 Southeast 96th Street. SE54XC005A.  Bellevue, WA. Prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.  Dalquest, W.W.   1948 The Mammals of Washington. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.  Duwamish Tribe  2010   “Culture and History.”Available: <http://www.duwamishtribe.org/index.html>.  Accessed: October 18, 2010  Easterbrook, D. J.   2003  Cordilleran Ice Sheet Glaciation of the Puget Lowland and Columbia Plateau and Alpine  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.  Elder, J. T, Melissa Cascella, and Christopher Hetzel  2010  Cultural Resources Survey Report – Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea  and NE Sunset Boulevard. On‐file at Washington DAHP, NADB#1354969.  Forsman, L. and D. Lewarch  2001  Archaeology of the White River. White River Journal: A Newsletter of the White River  Valley Museum. April. Available: <http://www. wrvmuseum.org/journal/journal_  0401.htm>. Accessed: July 25, 2006.  Franklin, J. F., and C. T. Dyrness  1988 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University  Press.   Goetz, Linda Naoi, Kara M. Kanaby, Douglas F. Tingwall, and Thomas C. Rust  2008  Dayton Avenue NE/NE 22nd Street Stormwater System Project, Renton, Washington.  Seattle, WA. Prepared by Landau Associates for BHC Consultants.  Greengo, R. E. and R. Houston  1970  Archaeological Excavations at Marymoor Farm. Department of Anthropology, University  of Washington, Seattle.  Hilbert et al.   2001 Ways of the Lushootseed People Ceremonies & Traditions of North Puget Sound First  People, Third Edition. Seattle, WA: Lushootseed Press.  City of Renton  References   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 8‐3 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   Hodges, Charles M.  2007a Cultural Resources Assessment for the Proposed Lowe’s of Renton Project, Renton, King  County, Washington. NWAA Report Number WA 07‐014. Seattle, WA. Prepared for PacLand  by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc.  2007b Archaeological Resource Assessment for the South Lake Washington Roadway  Improvement Project, City of Renton, King County, Washington. NWAA Report Number WA06‐ 055. Seattle, WA. Prepared for the City of Renton by Northwest Archaeological Associates,  Inc.  Juell, Ken  2001 Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Washington Light Rails Project. NWAA  Report WA01‐6. Seattle, WA. Prepared by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc.  Kidd, R. S.  1964 A Synthesis of Western Washington Prehistory from the Prospective of Three Occupational  Sites. Unpublished A.A. thesis. Department of Anthropology. Seattle, WA: University of  Washington.  Kopperl, R. E.  2004 Cultural Resources Clearance Survey, SR5 HOV Lane Construction, 48th Street to Pacific  Avenue, Tacoma, Pierce County. Northwest Archaeological Associates and the Environmental  History Company. On file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic  Preservation.  Larson, L. L., and D. E. Lewarch  1995 The Archaeology of West Point, Seattle, Washington: 4,000 Years of Hunter­Fisher­ Gatherer Land Use in Southern Puget Sound. Prepared by Larson  Anthropological/Archaeological Services, Seattle, WA.  Lord, Tom Forrester  1977 Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City.  Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc.  Madison, Charles A.  1971  Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.  Miss, Christian J.  2007  Archaeological Monitoring for the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvement  Project, City of Renton, King County, Washington. Seattle, WA. Prepared for the City of  Renton by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc.  Morning Olympian  1909  Survey New Renton Seattle Highway. 30 October:3. Olympia, Washington.  Mullineaux, D. R.  1965  Geologic map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington. U.S. Department of  the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey  National Register of Historic Places.   1997 National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.  Originally published in 1990. Revised in 1991, 1995, and 1997. Available:  <http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15>.  City of Renton  References   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 8‐4 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   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?CISOROOT=/imlsrenton&CISO PTR=240>. Accessed: October 13, 2010.  Rooke, Laura C.  2008  Site form 45KI786. On‐file at the Washington DAHP.  Slauson, Morda C.  2006 Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton Historical Society, Renton, WA.  Stipe, Frank T.  2007 Verizon Wireless SEA Renton Voc­Tech Cellular Tower Cultural Resources Review. Bothell,  WA. Prepared for Verizon Wireless by Tetra Tech Divisions, Inc.  Suttles, Wayne, and Barbara Lane  1990  "South Coast Salish". in Sturtevant, William C.. Handbook of North American Indians. 7.  Northwest coast. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.  Thrush, Coll  2007 Native Seattle: Histories From the Crossing­Over Place. University of Washington Press,  Seattle, WA.        Appendix A  Photographs   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood A‐1 February 2011 ICF 00593.10     Kirkland Avenue NE and NE 16th Street: Overview Looking South, Site of Demolished Duplexes  City of Renton  Appendix A   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood A‐2 February 2011 ICF 00593.10     STP2 with Typical Deposits for this Area  City of Renton  Appendix A   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood A‐3 February 2011 ICF 00593.10     Renton Highlands Library   City of Renton  Appendix A   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood A‐4 February 2011 ICF 00593.10     STP7 with Auger through Compacted Deposits  City of Renton  Appendix A   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood A‐5 February 2011 ICF 00593.10     Park Between Harrington Avenue NE and Harington Place NE   City of Renton  Appendix A   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood A‐6 February 2011 ICF 00593.10     STP12 in Park: Typical Deposits for this Area        Appendix B  Shovel Test Data   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood B‐1 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   Test  #  Width  (cm)  Depth  (cm)  Soil Description  Artifacts  (Yes/No)  Comments  1  40  0–25  Dark brown to dark gray coarse, poorly sorted  sand with some rounded to subrounded  gravels; burned wood, charcoal, etc.  Yes  Burned glass, glass  bottle fragments, brick  fragments, marble;  modern fill  25–44  Grayish brown poorly sorted coarse sand with  rounded to subrounded gravels  No  Glacial outwash  44–80  Orange brown poorly sorted coarse sand with  rounded to subrounded gravels  No  Glacial outwash  2  43  0–19  Brown‐gray coarse poorly sorted sand with  rounded gravels, fragments of wood, rootlets  Yes  Toothbrush, little to no  “A” horizon  19–47  Grayish brown poorly sorted coarse sand with  rounded to subrounded gravels; rootlets  No  Glacial outwash  47‐78  Orange brown poorly sorted coarse sand with  rounded to subrounded gravels  No  Glacial outwash;  terminated in primary  deposit  3  45  0–15  Dark brown sand with slight silt content  No  “A” horizon  15–50  Gray brown poorly sorted sand, coarse, with  some rounded to subrounded pebbles  Yes  May be a slight B  glass from Pepsi bottle  50–55  Black coarse sand burned abrupt upper  boundary  No     55–57  Light gray sand highly compacted some  subrounded gravels, abrupt upper boundary          No  Glacial outwash;  primary deposit  4     0–11  Dark brown, brown coarse sand with little silt.  some rounded to subrounded gravels,  grass/moss rootlets  No  “A” horizon  11–28  Grayish brown poorly sorted coarse sand with  rounded to subrounded gravels  No  Charcoal flecks  28–90  Orange brown poorly sorted coarse sand with  rounded to subrounded gravels  No  Glacial outwash  90–98  Dense gray/olive mottled sand‐coarse  No  Glacial outwash  5     0–11  Dark brown poorly sorted sand and silt  No  Weak “A” horizon  11–38  Gray‐gray brown coarse sand with few  rounded to subrounded gravels  No  Glacial outwash  38–40  Dense gray/olive mottled coarse sand  No  Glacial outwash  6     0–9  Bark‐landscaping duff  No  Fill  9–13  Very compact coarse sand/clay till  No  Glacial till  7     0–50  Olive brown poorly sorted coarse sand with  rounded to subrounded gravels; large root  No  Glacial outwash;  Fill/distrubed  Auger  50– 150  Same as above; jumbled fill  Yes  Aluminum foil at 55 cm  150– 160  Light gray brown poorly sorted coarse sand,  slight silt content, some rounded to  subrounded gravels  Yes  Glacial outwash;  primary deposit  City of Renton  Appendix B   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood B‐2 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   Test  #  Width  (cm)  Depth  (cm)  Soil Description  Artifacts  (Yes/No)  Comments  8  40  0–10  Dark brown, moderate grain sand with  rounded pebbles to gravel  No  Weak “A” horizon  10–25  Dense/very compact orange‐ish brown sand  with gravels; rounded to subround  No  “B” horizon  25–37  Very dark brown to very dark gray, extremely  compacted coarse sand   No  Fill; terminated due to  compactness  9     0–18  Dark brown medium‐coarse sand with high  organic content  Yes  Weak “A” horizon;  bricks, glass; Fill  18–34  Dark olive brown, coarse sand, poorly sorted  rounded to subrounded gravels; diffuse;  abrupt lower boundary  No  Fill  34–53  Dark brown‐ black coarse sand with burned  material  Yes  Numerous glass  fragments, brick; fill  53–92  Olive brown coarse sand with few subrounded  gravels  No     92– 130  Olive brown coarse sand with few subrounded  gravels                                                                                  No  Glacial outwash;  terminated on cobble  10     0–19  Dark brown med‐coarse sand with dense  rootlets  No  “A” horizon  19–68  Dark olive brown, coarse sand, poorly sorted;  rounded to subrounded gravels  Yes  Glass fragments to 30  cm  68–89  Gray brown, coarse sand, poorly sorted;  rounded to subrounded gravels  No     90  Gray/olive mottled coarse sand  dense/compact  No  Glacial outwash;  primary deposit  11     0–20  Dark brown coarse sand with organics  Yes  Glass fragments; Weak  “A” horizon  20–23  Olive brown coarse poorly sorted sand fill  Yes  Glass fragments; “B”  horizon  23–41  Dark gray brown coarse sand, poorly sorted fill  Yes  Glass fragments  41–60  Olive brown coarse sand with some rounded to  subrounded gravels  No  “B” horizon  60–75  Light olive gray coarse sand  No  Glacial outwash;  primary deposit  12     0–18  Dark brown coarse sand with rootlets  No  “A” horizon  18–49  Olive brown coarse sand, roots dense rounded  gravels to cobbles  No  “B” horizon  49–67  Olive gray to brown coarse sand, moderate to  compact with rounded to subrounded gravels  to cobbles  No     67–77  Very compact gray to olive gray coarse sand  and larger gravels  No  Terminated due to  gravels and  compactness        Appendix C  Unanticipated Discovery Plan    Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood C‐1 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery of Human  Skeletal Remains or Cultural Resources during the Redevelopment of Properties at  Kirkland Avenue NE Between 15th and 16th Streets, 2902 NE 12th Street, and 1150  Harrington Avenue NE in Renton, Washington      Any human skeletal remains that are discovered during this project will 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, the King County Coroner, and a cultural resource specialist or consultant  qualified to identify human skeletal remains. The county coroner will determine if the remains  are forensic or non‐forensic (whether related to a criminal investigation). The remains should  be protected in place until this has been determined.   D. If the human skeletal remains are determined to be non‐forensic, the King County Coroner will  notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. DAHP will  take jurisdiction over the remains. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination  of whether the remains are Native American or Non‐Native American. DAHP will handle all  consultation with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe as to the treatment of the remains.  E. If cultural resources are uncovered, such as stone tools or flakes, fire‐cracked rocks from a  hearth feature, butchered animal bones, or historic‐era objects (e.g., patent medicine bottles,  milk tins, clay pipes, building foundations), the City of Renton will arrange for a qualified  professional archaeologist to evaluate the find. Again, the cultural resources will be protected in  place until the archaeologist has examined the find.   F. If the cultural resources find is determined to be significant, the City of Renton cultural resource  specialist/archaeologist or consulting archaeologist will immediately contact the Washington  State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribes  to seek consultation regarding the eligibility of any further discovery for inclusion in the  National Register of Historic Places.   City of Renton  Appendix C   Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three  Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood C‐2 February 2011 ICF 00593.10   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 Sheriff’s Office Headquarters  516 Third Avenue, Room W‐150  Seattle, WA 98104‐2312   Phone: (206) 296‐4155 (non‐emergency)    Laura Murphy  Muckleshoot Tribe Cultural Resources  39015 172nd Avenue SE  Auburn, WA 98092  Phone: (253) 876‐3272  Appendix H Transportation Analysis—Preferred Alternative   HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE Sunset Blvd./NE Park & NE Sunset Blvd.2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 1544 87 174 1033 60 231 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3506 1770 3539 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3506 1770 3539 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.83 0.81 0.95 0.78 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 1560 105 215 1087 77 272 RTOR Reduction (vph)50000239 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1660 0 215 1087 77 33 Turn Type Prot Prot Protected Phases 2 1644 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 44.3 14.0 62.3 8.7 8.7 Effective Green, g (s) 46.3 15.0 64.3 9.7 9.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.58 0.19 0.80 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2029 332 2844 215 192 v/s Ratio Prot c0.47 c0.12 0.31 c0.04 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.82 0.65 0.38 0.36 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 13.5 30.1 2.2 32.3 31.5 Progression Factor 0.37 0.65 0.06 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.3 3.8 0.3 1.0 0.4 Delay (s) 8.3 23.3 0.5 33.3 32.0 Level of Service A C A C C Approach Delay (s) 8.3 4.2 32.3 Approach LOS A A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 9.2 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE Sunset Blvd & Edmonds AV NE 2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 145 1410 95 45 950 8 56 27 31 6 44 124 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.90 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3495 1770 3532 1770 1678 1770 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.65 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3495 1770 3532 596 1678 1217 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.95 0.71 0.86 0.89 0.58 0.84 0.52 0.72 0.63 0.66 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 171 1484 134 52 1067 14 67 52 43 10 67 148 RTOR Reduction (vph)050010036001250 Lane Group Flow (vph) 171 1613 0 52 1080 0 67 59 0 10 90 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.6 50.1 5.4 39.9 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 Effective Green, g (s) 16.6 52.1 6.4 41.9 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.65 0.08 0.52 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 367 2276 142 1850 93 262 190 252 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.46 0.03 c0.31 0.03 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm c0.11 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.71 0.37 0.58 0.72 0.22 0.05 0.36 Uniform Delay, d1 27.8 9.0 34.9 13.1 32.1 29.5 28.7 30.2 Progression Factor 0.89 0.70 1.08 0.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 1.2 2.0 1.2 25.3 0.6 0.2 1.2 Delay (s) 25.6 7.5 39.8 6.9 57.3 30.1 28.9 31.4 Level of Service C A D A E C C C Approach Delay (s) 9.2 8.4 41.4 31.2 Approach LOS A A D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 12.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE Sunset Blvd & Harrington AV NE 2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 25 1351 51 85 1102 4 43 10 79 2 3 3 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3515 1770 3534 1687 1746 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3515 1770 3534 1559 1675 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.75 0.90 0.72 0.86 0.92 0.38 0.90 0.50 0.75 0.67 0.57 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 1501 71 99 1198 11 48 20 105 3 5 5 RTOR Reduction (vph)0300100870040 Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 1569 0 99 1208 0 0 86 0090 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 2.4 49.6 7.2 54.4 10.2 10.2 Effective Green, g (s) 3.4 51.6 8.2 56.4 11.2 11.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.65 0.10 0.70 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 75 2267 181 2491 218 235 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.45 c0.06 c0.34 v/s Ratio Perm c0.06 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.69 0.55 0.49 0.40 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 37.4 9.1 34.1 5.3 31.3 29.7 Progression Factor 0.71 0.27 0.65 0.68 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.3 1.4 3.3 0.5 1.6 0.1 Delay (s) 30.7 3.8 25.5 4.1 32.9 29.8 Level of Service C A C A C C Approach Delay (s) 4.4 5.7 32.9 29.8 Approach LOS A A C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.6 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: NE 10th St & NE Sunset Blvd 2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 23 60 55 133 41 39 45 1165 161 82 1034 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1757 1770 3461 1770 3535 Flt Permitted 0.90 0.67 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1600 1219 1770 3461 1770 3535 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.65 0.92 0.96 0.67 0.77 0.63 0.68 0.96 0.77 0.83 0.94 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 35 65 57 199 53 62 66 1214 209 99 1100 9 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 26 0 0 11 0 0 16 0000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 131 0 0 303 0 66 1407 0 99 1109 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.4 22.4 4.8 37.4 7.2 39.8 Effective Green, g (s) 23.4 23.4 5.8 39.4 8.2 41.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.49 0.10 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 468 357 128 1705 181 1847 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.41 0.06 c0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.25 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.85 0.52 0.83 0.55 0.60 Uniform Delay, d1 21.8 26.6 35.7 17.4 34.1 13.3 Progression Factor 0.98 1.00 0.60 0.34 1.39 0.47 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 18.3 3.5 3.6 3.6 1.2 Delay (s) 22.1 45.0 25.0 9.6 51.0 7.5 Level of Service C D C A D A Approach Delay (s) 22.1 45.0 10.3 11.1 Approach LOS C D B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 14.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: NE Sunset Blvd & Kirkland Ave NE 2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 68 1162 7 0 892 4 0 0 33 0 0 89 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.90 0.50 0.50 0.90 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.33 0.90 0.25 0.63 Hourly flow rate (vph) 86 1291 14 0 991 16 0 0 100 0 0 141 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1086 344 pX, platoon unblocked 0.77 0.72 0.84 0.84 0.72 0.84 0.84 0.77 vC, conflicting volume 1007 1305 2107 2477 653 1917 2476 504 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 420 656 710 1152 0 482 1151 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 90 100 100 100 87 100 100 83 cM capacity (veh/h) 877 671 206 148 784 315 148 838 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 86 861 444 661 346 100 141 Volume Left 86 000000 Volume Right 0 0 14 0 16 100 141 cSH 877 1700 1700 1700 1700 784 838 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.51 0.26 0.39 0.20 0.13 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft)800001115 Control Delay (s) 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 10.2 Lane LOS A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 10.3 10.2 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: NE 12th St & NE Sunset Blvd 2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 193 167 12 92 88 51 34 1042 119 91 792 149 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3318 3222 1770 3480 1770 3447 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3318 3222 1770 3480 1770 3447 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.82 0.63 0.77 0.84 0.63 0.78 0.94 0.86 0.76 0.91 0.82 Adj. Flow (vph) 210 204 19 119 105 81 44 1109 138 120 870 182 RTOR Reduction (vph)040049001100190 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 429 0 0 256 0 44 1236 0 120 1033 0 Turn Type Split Split Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 15.3 11.4 4.3 28.7 7.6 32.0 Effective Green, g (s) 16.3 12.4 5.3 30.7 8.6 34.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.16 0.07 0.38 0.11 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 676 499 117 1335 190 1465 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.08 0.02 c0.36 0.07 c0.30 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.63 0.51 0.38 0.93 0.63 0.71 Uniform Delay, d1 29.1 31.0 35.8 23.6 34.2 18.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.20 0.42 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 1.2 1.9 9.3 7.5 2.9 Delay (s) 31.3 32.2 44.8 19.1 41.7 21.8 Level of Service C C D B D C Approach Delay (s) 31.3 32.2 20.0 23.8 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 24.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: NE Sunset Blvd & Monroe Ave NE 2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 1272 14 4 1032 0 18 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.50 0.25 0.90 0.90 0.63 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1413 28 16 1147 0 29 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1166 pX, platoon unblocked 0.72 0.72 0.72 vC, conflicting volume 1441 2033 721 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 822 1648 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 100 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 575 63 776 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 Volume Total 942 499 16 573 573 29 Volume Left 0 0 16 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 28 0 0 0 29 cSH 1700 1700 575 1700 1700 388 Volume to Capacity 0.55 0.29 0.03 0.34 0.34 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft)002006 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 15.0 Lane LOS B C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 15.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: NE 12th St & Edmonds AV NE 2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 4 46 6 45 55 248 14 159 58 387 123 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 56 7 48 59 267 15 169 62 425 135 9 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 68 374 184 62 569 Volume Left (vph) 5 48 15 0 425 Volume Right (vph) 7 267 0 62 9 Hadj (s) -0.05 -0.40 0.04 -0.70 0.14 Departure Headway (s) 7.4 6.1 7.1 6.3 6.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.14 0.64 0.36 0.11 0.97 Capacity (veh/h) 449 572 491 545 575 Control Delay (s) 11.6 19.2 12.8 8.9 54.2 Approach Delay (s) 11.6 19.2 11.8 54.2 Approach LOS B C B F Intersection Summary Delay 33.2 HCM Level of Service D Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: NE 12th St & Harrington AV NE 2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 36 318 11 18 308 72 18 18 14 50 18 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.74 0.38 0.63 0.80 1.00 0.63 0.42 0.33 0.39 0.42 0.25 Hourly flow rate (vph) 57 430 29 29 385 72 29 43 42 128 43 16 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 516 486 114 187 Volume Left (vph) 57 29 29 128 Volume Right (vph) 29 72 42 16 Hadj (s) 0.02 -0.04 -0.14 0.12 Departure Headway (s) 6.0 6.0 7.3 7.3 Degree Utilization, x 0.86 0.81 0.23 0.38 Capacity (veh/h) 588 582 432 451 Control Delay (s) 34.6 29.1 12.5 14.6 Approach Delay (s) 34.6 29.1 12.5 14.6 Approach LOS D D B B Intersection Summary Delay 27.8 HCM Level of Service D Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: NE 12th St & Kirkland Ave NE 2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 18 326 10 7 240 36 21 46 4 72 36 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.42 0.87 0.33 0.50 0.87 0.50 0.58 0.65 0.25 0.71 0.42 0.50 Hourly flow rate (vph) 43 375 30 14 276 72 36 71 16 101 86 28 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 230 218 152 210 123 215 Volume Left (vph) 43 0 14 0 36 101 Volume Right (vph) 0 30 0 72 16 28 Hadj (s) 0.13 -0.06 0.08 -0.21 0.01 0.05 Departure Headway (s) 6.3 6.1 6.4 6.1 6.4 6.2 Degree Utilization, x 0.40 0.37 0.27 0.35 0.22 0.37 Capacity (veh/h) 545 564 534 561 496 536 Control Delay (s) 12.3 11.4 10.5 11.2 11.2 12.8 Approach Delay (s) 11.9 10.9 11.2 12.8 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection Summary Delay 11.7 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE Sunset Blvd./NE Park & NE Sunset Blvd.2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 1695 96 191 1135 65 254 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3506 1770 3539 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3506 1770 3539 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.83 0.81 0.95 0.78 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 1712 116 236 1195 83 299 RTOR Reduction (vph)50000262 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1823 0 236 1195 83 37 Turn Type Prot Prot Protected Phases 2 1644 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 44.0 14.0 62.0 9.0 9.0 Effective Green, g (s) 46.0 15.0 64.0 10.0 10.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.58 0.19 0.80 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2016 332 2831 221 198 v/s Ratio Prot c0.52 c0.13 0.34 c0.05 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.90 0.71 0.42 0.38 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 15.1 30.5 2.4 32.1 31.4 Progression Factor 0.41 0.64 0.06 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.5 5.8 0.4 1.1 0.5 Delay (s) 12.7 25.2 0.5 33.2 31.8 Level of Service B C A C C Approach Delay (s) 12.7 4.6 32.1 Approach LOS B A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE Sunset Blvd & Edmonds AV NE 2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 160 1549 105 50 1043 9 62 30 34 7 48 136 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.90 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3495 1770 3532 1770 1680 1770 1614 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.63 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3495 1770 3532 562 1680 1180 1614 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.95 0.71 0.86 0.89 0.58 0.84 0.52 0.72 0.63 0.66 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 188 1631 148 58 1172 16 74 58 47 11 73 162 RTOR Reduction (vph)050010039001300 Lane Group Flow (vph) 188 1774 0 58 1187 0 74 66 0 11 105 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.5 48.7 5.6 38.8 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 Effective Green, g (s) 16.5 50.7 6.6 40.8 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.63 0.08 0.51 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 365 2215 146 1801 96 288 202 276 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 c0.51 0.03 c0.34 0.04 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm c0.13 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.80 0.40 0.66 0.77 0.23 0.05 0.38 Uniform Delay, d1 28.2 10.9 34.8 14.5 31.7 28.6 27.7 29.4 Progression Factor 0.89 0.74 1.04 0.48 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 1.6 2.1 1.7 32.5 0.6 0.2 1.2 Delay (s) 25.9 9.7 38.1 8.7 64.2 29.2 27.9 30.6 Level of Service C A D A E C C C Approach Delay (s) 11.2 10.0 43.6 30.5 Approach LOS B B D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 13.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE Sunset Blvd & Harrington AV NE 2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 27 1483 56 93 1209 4 47 10 86 2 4 5 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3515 1770 3535 1685 1737 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3515 1770 3535 1554 1681 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.75 0.90 0.72 0.86 0.92 0.38 0.90 0.50 0.75 0.67 0.57 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 36 1648 78 108 1314 11 52 20 115 3 7 8 RTOR Reduction (vph)0300000900070 Lane Group Flow (vph) 36 1723 0 108 1325 0 0 97 0 0 11 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.6 49.9 6.4 52.7 10.7 10.7 Effective Green, g (s) 4.6 51.9 7.4 54.7 11.7 11.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.65 0.09 0.68 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 102 2280 164 2417 227 246 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.49 c0.06 0.37 v/s Ratio Perm c0.06 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.76 0.66 0.55 0.43 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 36.3 9.7 35.1 6.4 31.1 29.4 Progression Factor 0.65 0.43 0.66 0.74 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 1.6 7.4 0.6 1.8 0.1 Delay (s) 25.5 5.8 30.4 5.4 32.9 29.5 Level of Service C A C A C C Approach Delay (s) 6.2 7.3 32.9 29.5 Approach LOS A A C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 8.2 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: NE 10th St & NE Sunset Blvd 2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 25 67 58 146 45 43 50 1280 177 91 1136 9 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1755 1757 1770 3461 1770 3535 Flt Permitted 0.90 0.66 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1592 1197 1770 3461 1770 3535 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.65 0.92 0.96 0.67 0.77 0.63 0.68 0.96 0.77 0.83 0.94 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 38 73 60 218 58 68 74 1333 230 110 1209 10 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 24 0 0 11 0 0 17 0000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 147 0 0 333 0 74 1546 0 110 1219 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.4 23.4 4.8 36.4 7.2 38.8 Effective Green, g (s) 24.4 24.4 5.8 38.4 8.2 40.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.07 0.48 0.10 0.51 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 486 365 128 1661 181 1803 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.45 0.06 c0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 c0.28 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.91 0.58 0.93 0.61 0.68 Uniform Delay, d1 21.3 26.8 35.9 19.6 34.4 14.7 Progression Factor 0.98 1.00 0.60 0.37 1.28 0.82 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 27.5 5.2 8.0 5.3 1.7 Delay (s) 21.7 54.2 26.9 15.2 49.4 13.6 Level of Service C D C B D B Approach Delay (s) 21.7 54.2 15.7 16.6 Approach LOS C D B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 20.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: NE Sunset Blvd & Kirkland Ave NE 2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 75 1276 8 0 981 4 0 0 36 0 0 98 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.90 0.50 0.50 0.90 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.33 0.90 0.25 0.63 Hourly flow rate (vph) 95 1418 16 0 1090 16 0 0 109 0 0 156 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1086 344 pX, platoon unblocked 0.73 0.65 0.79 0.79 0.65 0.79 0.79 0.73 vC, conflicting volume 1106 1434 2316 2722 717 2106 2722 553 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 399 595 578 1093 0 311 1093 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 89 100 100 100 85 100 100 80 cM capacity (veh/h) 842 636 230 149 706 376 149 790 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 95 945 489 727 379 109 156 Volume Left 95 000000 Volume Right 0 0 16 0 16 109 156 cSH 842 1700 1700 1700 1700 706 790 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.56 0.29 0.43 0.22 0.15 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft)900001418 Control Delay (s) 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 10.7 Lane LOS A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 11.0 10.7 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: NE 12th St & NE Sunset Blvd 2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 212 183 14 101 97 56 37 1144 131 100 870 164 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3317 3222 1770 3480 1770 3447 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3317 3222 1770 3480 1770 3447 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.82 0.63 0.77 0.84 0.63 0.78 0.94 0.86 0.76 0.91 0.82 Adj. Flow (vph) 230 223 22 131 115 89 47 1217 152 132 956 200 RTOR Reduction (vph)050049001100190 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 470 0 0 286 0 47 1358 0 132 1137 0 Turn Type Split Split Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 15.8 12.1 4.0 27.5 7.6 31.1 Effective Green, g (s) 16.8 13.1 5.0 29.5 8.6 33.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.16 0.06 0.37 0.11 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 697 528 111 1283 190 1426 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.09 0.03 c0.39 0.07 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.67 0.54 0.42 1.06 0.69 0.80 Uniform Delay, d1 29.1 30.7 36.1 25.2 34.4 20.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.18 0.46 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.8 1.4 2.1 37.0 11.3 4.7 Delay (s) 31.9 32.1 44.6 48.7 45.7 25.2 Level of Service C C D D D C Approach Delay (s) 31.9 32.1 48.5 27.3 Approach LOS CCDC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 36.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: NE Sunset Blvd & Monroe Ave NE 2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 1396 16 4 1134 0 20 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.50 0.25 0.90 0.90 0.63 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1551 32 16 1260 0 32 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1166 pX, platoon unblocked 0.69 0.69 0.69 vC, conflicting volume 1583 2229 792 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 936 1877 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 100 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 499 42 744 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 Volume Total 1034 549 16 630 630 32 Volume Left 0 0 16 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 32 0 0 0 32 cSH 1700 1700 499 1700 1700 372 Volume to Capacity 0.61 0.32 0.03 0.37 0.37 0.09 Queue Length 95th (ft)002007 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 12.4 0.0 0.0 15.6 Lane LOS B C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 15.6 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: NE 12th St & Edmonds AV NE 2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 4 51 7 50 60 272 16 174 64 425 135 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 62 9 54 65 292 17 185 68 467 148 10 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 76 411 202 68 625 Volume Left (vph) 5 54 17 0 467 Volume Right (vph) 9 292 0 68 10 Hadj (s) -0.05 -0.40 0.04 -0.70 0.14 Departure Headway (s) 7.6 6.2 7.2 6.5 6.4 Degree Utilization, x 0.16 0.71 0.41 0.12 1.11 Capacity (veh/h) 423 564 467 525 556 Control Delay (s) 12.0 23.1 13.9 9.2 96.3 Approach Delay (s) 12.0 23.1 12.7 96.3 Approach LOS B C B F Intersection Summary Delay 53.6 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: NE 12th St & Harrington AV NE 2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 39 350 12 20 338 79 20 20 16 55 20 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.74 0.38 0.63 0.80 1.00 0.63 0.42 0.33 0.39 0.42 0.25 Hourly flow rate (vph) 62 473 32 32 422 79 32 48 48 141 48 16 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 566 533 128 205 Volume Left (vph) 62 32 32 141 Volume Right (vph) 32 79 48 16 Hadj (s) 0.02 -0.04 -0.14 0.12 Departure Headway (s) 6.4 6.4 7.9 7.7 Degree Utilization, x 1.01 0.94 0.28 0.44 Capacity (veh/h) 547 554 433 445 Control Delay (s) 67.1 49.7 13.9 16.7 Approach Delay (s) 67.1 49.7 13.9 16.7 Approach LOS F E B C Intersection Summary Delay 48.6 HCM Level of Service E Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: NE 12th St & Kirkland Ave NE 2/10/2011 Preferred Alternative PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 20 357 12 8 263 39 23 51 4 79 39 16 Peak Hour Factor 0.42 0.87 0.33 0.50 0.87 0.50 0.58 0.65 0.25 0.71 0.42 0.50 Hourly flow rate (vph) 48 410 36 16 302 78 40 78 16 111 93 32 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 253 242 167 229 134 236 Volume Left (vph) 48 0 16 0 40 111 Volume Right (vph) 0 36 0 78 16 32 Hadj (s) 0.13 -0.07 0.08 -0.20 0.02 0.05 Departure Headway (s) 6.6 6.4 6.7 6.4 6.8 6.5 Degree Utilization, x 0.46 0.43 0.31 0.41 0.25 0.43 Capacity (veh/h) 525 544 512 537 471 514 Control Delay (s) 13.9 12.8 11.4 12.5 12.0 14.2 Approach Delay (s) 13.4 12.0 12.0 14.2 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection Summary Delay 13.0 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Greenroads Sustainability Performance MetricFEIS Preferred AlternativeNo. Title PointsPR-1 Environmental Review Process Req IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDPR-2 Lufe Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) Req Included Not Included TBI TBDPR-3 Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Req Included Not Included TBI TBDPR-4 Quality Control Plan Req Included Not Included TBIXTBDPR-5 Noise Mitigation Plan Req Included Not Included TBIXTBDPR-6 Waste Management Plan Req Included Not Included TBI TBDPR-7 Pollution Prevention Plan Req Included Not Included TBIXTBDPR-8 Low-Impact Development (LID) Req Included Not Included TBIXTBDPR-9 Pavement Management System Req Included Not Included TBI TBDPR 10Site Maintenance PlanReqIncludedNot IncludedTBITBDImprovementsProject Requirements (PR)PR-10Site Maintenance PlanReqIncludedNot IncludedTBITBDPR-11 Educational Outreach Req IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDEW-1 Environmental Management System 2 Included Not Included TBI TBDEW-2 Runoff Flow Control 3 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDEW-3 Runoff Quality 3 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDEW-4 Stormwater Cost Analysis 1 Included Not Included TBIXTBDEW-5 Site Vegetation 3 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDEW-6 Habit Restoration 3 Included Not IncludedXTBI TBDEW-7 Ecological Connectivity 3 Included Not Included TBI TBDEW-8 Light Pollution 3 Included Not Included TBI TBDEW Subtotal: 21 91Environment & Water (EW) No. Title PointsImprovementsAE-1 Safety Audit 2 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDAE-2 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) 5 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDAE-3 Context Sensititve Planning 5 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDAE-4 Traffic Emissions Reduction 5 Included Not IncludedXTBI TBDAE-5 Pedestrian Access 2 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDAE-6 Bicycle Access 2 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDAE-7 Transit/HOV Access 5 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDAE-8 Scenic Views 2 Included Not IncludedXTBI TBDAE-9 Cultural Warranty 2 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDAE Subtotal: 30 23CA-1 Quality Management System 2 Included Not Included TBI TBDCA-2 Environmental Training 1 Included Not Included TBI TBDCA-3 Site Recycle Plan 1 Included Not Included TBI TBDCA-4 Fossil Fuel Use Reduction 2 Included Not Included TBI TBDAccess & Equity (AE)Construction Activities (CA)CA-5 Equipment Emission Reduction 2 Included Not Included TBI TBDCA-6 Paver Emission Reduction 1 Included Not Included TBI TBDCA-7 Water Use Tracking 2 Included Not Included TBI TBDCA-8 Contractor Warranty 3 Included Not Included TBI TBDCA Subtotal: 14MR-1 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) 2 Included Not Included TBI TBDMR-2 Pavement Reuse 5 Included Not Included TBI TBDMR-3 Earthwork Balance 1 Included Not Included TBI TBDMR-4 Recycled Materials 5 Included Not Included TBI TBDMR-5 Regional Materials 5 Included Not Included TBI TBDMR-6 Energy Efficiency 5 Included Not Included TBI TBDMaterials & Resources (MR) No. Title PointsImprovementsMR Subtotal: 23PT-1 Long-Life Pavement 5 Included Not Included TBI TBDPT-2 Permeable Pavement 3 Included Not Included TBI TBDPT-3 Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) 3 Included Not Included TBI TBDPT-4 Cool Pavement 5 Included Not Included TBI TBDPT-5 Quiet Pavement 3 Included Not Included TBI TBDPT-6 Pavement Performance Tracking 1 Included Not IncludedXTBI TBDPT Total: 20CC-1 Custom Credits 10 Included Not Included TBI TBDCC Subtotal: 10Greenroads Total: 118 33 included or TBI and 66 TBDPavemnet Technologies (PT)Custom Credits (CC) Greenroads Sustainability Performance MetricALTERNATIVE 3No. Title PointsPR-1 Environmental Review Process Req IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDPR-2 Lufe Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) Req Included Not Included TBI TBDXPR-3 Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Req Included Not Included TBI TBDXPR-4 Quality Control Plan Req Included Not Included TBIXTBDPR-5 Noise Mitigation Plan Req Included Not Included TBIXTBDPR-6 Waste Management Plan Req Included Not Included TBI TBDXPR-7 Pollution Prevention Plan Req Included Not Included TBIXTBDPR-8 Low-Impact Development (LID) Req Included Not Included TBIXTBDPR-9 Pavement Management System Req Included Not Included TBI TBDXPR-10 Site Maintenance Plan Req Included Not Included TBI TBDXPR-11 Educational Outreach Req IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDImprovementsProject Requirements (PR)EW-1 Environmental Management System 2 Included Not Included TBI TBDEW-2 Runoff Flow Control 3 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDEW-3 Runoff Quality 3 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDEW-4 Stormwater Cost Analysis 1 Included Not Included TBIXTBDEW-5 Site Vegetation 3 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDEW-6 Habit Restoration 3 Included Not IncludedXTBI TBDEW-7 Ecological Connectivity 3 Included Not Included TBI TBDXEW-8 Light Pollution 3 Included Not Included TBI TBDXEW Subtotal: 21 916AE-1 Safety Audit 2 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDAE-2 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) 5 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDAE-3 Context Sensititve Planning 5 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDEnvironment & Water (EW)Access & Equity (AE) No. Title PointsImprovementsAE-4 Traffic Emissions Reduction 5 Included Not IncludedXTBI TBDAE-5 Pedestrian Access 2 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDAE-6 Bicycle Access 2 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDAE-7 Transit/HOV Access 5 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDAE-8 Scenic Views 2 Included Not IncludedXTBI TBDAE-9 Cultural Warranty 2 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDAE Subtotal: 30 23CA-1 Quality Management System 2 Included Not Included TBI TBDXCA-2 Environmental Training 1 Included Not Included TBI TBDXCA-3 Site Recycle Plan 1 Included Not Included TBI TBDXCA-4 Fossil Fuel Use Reduction 2 Included Not Included TBI TBDXCA-5 Equipment Emission Reduction 2 Included Not Included TBI TBDXCA-6 Paver Emission Reduction 1 Included Not Included TBI TBDXCA-7 Water Use Tracking 2 Included Not Included TBI TBDXCA-8 Contractor Warranty 3 Included Not Included TBI TBDXCA Subtotal: 1414Construction Activities (CA)Materials & Resources (MR)MR-1 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) 2 Included Not Included TBI TBDXMR-2 Pavement Reuse 5 Included Not Included TBI TBDXMR-3 Earthwork Balance 1 Included Not Included TBI TBDXMR-4 Recycled Materials 5 Included Not Included TBI TBDXMR-5 Regional Materials 5 Included Not Included TBI TBDXMR-6 Energy Efficiency 5 Included Not Included TBI TBDXMR Subtotal: 2323PT-1 Long-Life Pavement 5 Included Not Included TBI TBDXPT-2 Permeable Pavement 3 Included Not Included TBI TBDXPT-3 Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) 3 Included Not Included TBI TBDXPT-4 Cool Pavement 5 Included Not Included TBI TBDXPT-5 Quiet Pavement 3 Included Not Included TBI TBDXPavemnet Technologies (PT)Materials & Resources (MR) No. Title PointsImprovementsPT-6 Pavement Performance Tracking 1 Included Not IncludedXTBI TBDPT Total: 2019CC-1 Custom Credits 10 Included Not Included TBI TBDXCC Subtotal: 1010Greenroads Total: 118 33 included or TBI and 66 TBDCustom Credits (CC) Greenroads Sustainability Performance MetricALTERNATIVE 2No. Title PointsPR-1 Environmental Review Process Req IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDPR-2 Lufe Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) Req Included Not Included TBI TBDXPR-3 Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Req Included Not Included TBI TBDXPR-4 Quality Control Plan Req Included Not Included TBIXTBDPR-5 Noise Mitigation Plan Req Included Not Included TBIXTBDPR-6 Waste Management Plan Req Included Not Included TBI TBDXPR-7 Pollution Prevention Plan Req Included Not Included TBIXTBDPR-8 Low-Impact Development (LID) Req Included Not Included TBIXTBDPR-9 Pavement Management System Req Included Not Included TBI TBDXPR-10 Site Maintenance Plan Req Included Not Included TBI TBDXPR-11 Educational Outreach Req IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDImprovementsProject Requirements (PR)EW-1 Environmental Management System 2 Included Not Included TBI TBDEW-2 Runoff Flow Control 3 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDEW-3 Runoff Quality 3 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDEW-4 Stormwater Cost Analysis 1 Included Not Included TBIXTBDEW-5 Site Vegetation 3 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDEW-6 Habit Restoration 3 Included Not IncludedXTBI TBDEW-7 Ecological Connectivity 3 Included Not Included TBI TBDXEW-8 Light Pollution 3 Included Not Included TBI TBDXEW Subtotal: 21 916AE-1 Safety Audit 2 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDAE-2 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) 5 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDAE-3 Context Sensititve Planning 5 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDEnvironment & Water (EW)Access & Equity (AE) No. Title PointsImprovementsAE-4 Traffic Emissions Reduction 5 Included Not IncludedXTBI TBDAE-5 Pedestrian Access 2 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDAE-6 Bicycle Access 2 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDAE-7 Transit/HOV Access 5 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDAE-8 Scenic Views 2 Included Not IncludedXTBI TBDAE-9 Cultural Warranty 2 IncludedXNot Included TBI TBDAE Subtotal: 30 23CA-1 Quality Management System 2 Included Not Included TBI TBDXCA-2 Environmental Training 1 Included Not Included TBI TBDXCA-3 Site Recycle Plan 1 Included Not Included TBI TBDXCA-4 Fossil Fuel Use Reduction 2 Included Not Included TBI TBDXCA-5 Equipment Emission Reduction 2 Included Not Included TBI TBDXCA-6 Paver Emission Reduction 1 Included Not Included TBI TBDXCA-7 Water Use Tracking 2 Included Not Included TBI TBDXCA-8 Contractor Warranty 3 Included Not Included TBI TBDXCA Subtotal: 1414Construction Activities (CA)Materials & Resources (MR)MR-1 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) 2 Included Not Included TBI TBDXMR-2 Pavement Reuse 5 Included Not Included TBI TBDXMR-3 Earthwork Balance 1 Included Not Included TBI TBDXMR-4 Recycled Materials 5 Included Not Included TBI TBDXMR-5 Regional Materials 5 Included Not Included TBI TBDXMR-6 Energy Efficiency 5 Included Not Included TBI TBDXMR Subtotal: 2323PT-1 Long-Life Pavement 5 Included Not Included TBI TBDXPT-2 Permeable Pavement 3 Included Not Included TBI TBDXPT-3 Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) 3 Included Not Included TBI TBDXPT-4 Cool Pavement 5 Included Not Included TBI TBDXPT-5 Quiet Pavement 3 Included Not Included TBI TBDXMaterials & Resources (MR)Pavemnet Technologies (PT) No. Title PointsImprovementsPT-6 Pavement Performance Tracking 1 Included Not IncludedXTBI TBDPT Total: 2019CC-1 Custom Credits 10 Included Not Included TBI TBDXCC Subtotal: 1010Greenroads Total: 118 33 included or TBI and 66 TBDCustom Credits (CC)   Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement H.4-1 April 2011 ICF 593.10 Complete Streets: Exception Criteria Background The Preferred Alternative will include full compliance with the City’s complete streets ordinance with some modification in the portion of Sunset where topography prevents full implementation. At Edmonds Avenue NE and Harrington Avenue NE, the Preferred Alternative would keep the existing curb and 5-foot-wide sidewalk (no planter) and right-of-way would be acquired from the north side (Sunset Terrace) up to 14 feet. East of 10th Street NE, there appears to be sufficient right-of-way width along NE Sunset Boulevard to accommodate the Complete Street cross section, though in some places parking improvements encroach into the existing right-of-way. See Final EIS Figure 2-13 for Preferred Alternative cross sections. The City allows for exemptions from Complete Streets standards for pedestrian and bicycle facilities if certain criteria are met in RMC 4-6-060. This document provides the criteria and preliminary discussion of the preferred alternative cross section. A more complete analysis will be prepared at the time design-level plans are prepared. Criteria 4-6-060 STREET STANDARDS G. COMPLETE STREETS: 1. Complete Streets: The City of Renton will plan for, design, and construct transportation projects to appropriately provide accommodations for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities, and freight and motor vehicles, including the incorporation of such facilities into transportation plans and programs. 2. Exemptions: Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are not required to be established when it is concluded by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development and/or designee that application of complete streets principles is unnecessary or inappropriate: a. Where their establishment would be contrary to public safety; or b. When the cost would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use; or c. Where there is no identified long-term need; or d. Where the establishment would violate Comprehensive Plan policies; or e. Where the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development and/or designee grants a documented exemption which may only be authorized in specific situations where conditions warrant. Such site-specific exemptions shall not constitute general changes to the minimum street standards established in this Section. City of Renton Appendix H: Complete Streets Exception Criteria Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement H.4-2 April 2011 ICF 593.10 Discussion The reduction in nonmotorized elements of the NE Sunset Boulevard cross section on the south side of NE Sunset Boulevard between Edmonds Avenue NE and Harrington Avenue NE appears to meet criteria G.2.b and e, and potentially criteria a, due to:  topographic constraints and the presence of a retaining wall,  the anticipated cost of moving the retaining wall compared to the need or probable use,  the ability to provide full nonmotorized facilities on the north side of NE Sunset Boulevard and most improvements on the south side of the roadway. Appendix I Parks and Recreation Analysis—Preferred Alternative   Appendix I - Parks and Recreation Level of Service Calculations LOS Standards Highlands Park LOS Existing:10.4 acres Park LOS Recreation Facilities LOS Type: Community Park Neighborhood Park Baseball/softball fields Outside 0.5 mile study area 1 field/2,250 persons Study Area inside Study Area, 1.2 acres/1,000 persons Service Area inside Football/soccer fields (blue area)Service Community Park 1 field/3,000 persons Area 1-2 mile study area (1 mile used for report)(blue area) 2.5 acres/1,000 persons Tennis Courts 1 court/2,500 persons Alternative Population*Dwellings Jobs Existing**2,978 1,289 1,306 Walking/hiking trails Alternative 1 6,417 2,778 2,220 .2 miles/1,000 persons Alternative 2 6,808 2,947 3,471 Alternative 3 8,768 3,796 4,636 Swimming pools (not evaluated in report)Study area 11,675,946 Preferred Alternative 8,381 3,628 4,460 1 pool/40,000 persons Study area clip 11,675,946 Percent area 100% *Basis for LOS analysis.** Jobs 2006 TAZ data; Other 2010 data SA Popa Total SA Popb 2010 population 2,978 2006 population 16,664 19,642 North Highlands Park LOS Alt 1 population 6,417 Alt 1 population 24,885 31,302 Existing:2.64 acres Alt 2 population 6,808 Alt 2 population 24,837 31,645 Type:Neighborhood Park Alt 3 population 8,768 Alt 3 population 25,254 34,022 Preferred Alt. population 8,381 Preferred Alt. population 25,193 33,574 Study Area inside Outside Study area,LOS in Study Area LOS in Service Area Service Area inside Service Area LOS Suplus/Deficiency LOS Surplus/Deficiency (blue area)(blue area)LOS 2010 7.45 2.96 49.11 -38.71 LOS Alt 1 16.04 -5.64 78.26 -67.86 LOS Alt 2 17.02 -6.62 79.11 -68.71 LOS Alt 3 21.92 -11.52 85.06 -74.66 LOS Preferred Alt 20.95 -10.55 83.94 -73.54 Sunset Court Park LOS Existing 0.5 acres Preferred Alt.2.65 acres Study area 11,675,946 Type: Neighborhood Park Study area clip 8,328,915 Percent area 71%Existing Sunset Court Park Relocated/Larger Sunset Court Park (Pref. Alt. only) SA Popa Total SA Popb Study Area inside Service Area Outside Study Area, inside Service Area Study Area inside Service Area Outside Study Area, inside Service Area 2010 population 2,124 2006 population 2,369 4,493 (blue area)(blue area)(blue area)(blue area) Alt 1 population 4,578 Alt 1 population 3,381 7,959 Alt 2 population 4,856 Alt 2 population 3,275 8,131 Alt 3 population 6,255 Alt 3 population 3,574 9,829 Preferred Alt. population 5,978 Preferred Alt. population 3,540 9,518 LOS in Study Area LOS in Service Area LOS Suplus / Deficiency LOS Surplus / Deficiency LOS 2010 2.55 0.09 5.39 -2.75 LOS Alt 1 5.49 -2.85 9.55 -6.91 LOS Alt 2 5.83 -3.19 9.76 -7.12 LOS Alt 3 7.51 -4.87 11.79 -9.15 Study area 11,675,946 LOS Preferred Alt 7.17 -4.53 11.42 -8.78 Study area clip 11,086,172 Study Area clip (blue area) 9,682,947 Percent area 95%Percent area 83% Recreation Facilities LOS SA Popa Total SA Popb Count withc Count withoutd Existing LOS Alt 1 LOS Alt 2 LOS Alt 3 LOS Preferred Alt 2010 population 2,828 2006 population 2,801 5,629 Baseball/softball fields 6 1 1.32 2.85 3.03 3.90 3.72 Alt 1 population 6,093 Alt 1 population 4,210 10,303 Football/soccer fields 4 1 0.99 2.14 2.27 2.92 2.79 Alt 2 population 6,464 Alt 2 population 4,215 10,679 Tennis courts 6 3 1.19 2.57 2.72 3.51 3.35 Alt 3 population 8,325 Alt 3 population 4,512 12,837 Walking/hiking trails 0.35 0.35 0.60 1.28 1.36 1.75 --Preferred Alt. population 6,950 Preferred Alt. population 4,967 11,917 Multi-use trail (Pref Alt.)1.2 1.2 --------1.68 LOS in Study Area LOS in Service Area With Schools LOS Suplus/Deficiency LOS Surplus/Deficiency Existinge Alt 1e Alt 2e Alt 3e Pref Alt.e Existinge Alt 1e Alt 2e Alt 3e Pref Alt.e LOS 2010 3.39 -2.89 6.75 -6.25 Baseball/softball fields 4.68 3.15 2.97 2.10 2.28 -0.32 -1.85 -2.03 -2.90 -2.72 LOS Alt 1 7.31 -6.81 12.36 -11.86 Football/soccer fields 3.01 1.86 1.73 1.08 1.21 0.01 -1.14 -1.27 -1.92 -1.79 LOS Alt 2 7.76 -7.26 12.81 -12.31 Tennis courts 4.81 3.43 3.28 2.49 2.65 1.81 0.43 0.28 -0.51 -0.35 LOS Alt 3 9.99 -9.49 15.40 -14.90 Walking/hiking trails -0.25 -0.93 -1.01 -1.40 -0.48 -0.25 -0.93 -1.01 -1.40 -0.48 LOS Preferred Alt 8.34 -5.69 14.30 -11.65 a "SA Pop" = Service area population outside study area b "Total SA Pop" = Total service area population c Number of facilities, including school facilities d Number of facilities, not including school facilities e Negative value = deficiency, positive value = surplus Planned Action Study Area Total Without Schools