The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutQuendall Terminals Environmental Consistency Analysis ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Quendall Terminals Renton, Washington February 9, 2017 prepared by City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Quendall Terminals i Table of Contents Environmental Consistency Analysis QUENDALL TERMINALS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. E-1 CHAPTER 1 COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE EIS ALTERNATIVES & ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................... 1-1 CHAPTER 2 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS UNDER THE EIS ALTERNATIVES & ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................... 2-1 APPENDICES Appendix A – Transportation Analysis - Enhanced Alternative - Left-Turn Lane Analysis for Street ‘A’ - Enhanced Alternative Appendix B – Comparison of Impacts under the EIS Alternatives & the Enhanced Alternative Appendix C – GHG Emissions Worksheet for Enhanced Alternative LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1-1 Regional Map ..................................................................................................................... 1-2 1-2 Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................................... 1-3 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1-1 Comparison of 2010 – 2015 SEPA Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative ......................................................................................................... 1-7 1-2 Building Height – Preferred Alternative & Enhanced Alternative ..................................... 1-8 Quendall Terminals E-1 Environmental Consistency Analysis EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Applicant (Century Pacific, LP) is proposing mixed-use redevelopment, including multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and parks/opens space uses on an approximately 21.5-acre site located in northern Renton on the shores of Lake Washington. To date, four environmental review documents under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) have been published by the City of Renton on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project: • Quendall Terminals Draft Environmental Impact Statement (December 2010); • Quendall Terminals Environmental Impact Statement Addendum (October 2012); • Quendall Terminals Final Environmental Impact Statement (August 2015); and • Quendall Terminals Mitigation Document (August 2015). The Applicant is currently seeking approval for the following plans/permits from the City: • Master Site Plan; • Binding Site Plan; and • Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The City and the Applicant have initiated preparation of a Development Agreement for the project. An “Enhanced Alternative” has been created during this process. The following report contains an Environmental Consistency Analysis for the Enhanced Alternative. Goal of this Analysis The goal of the Quendall Terminals Environmental Consistency Analysis is to confirm that proposed development and associated environmental impacts under the Enhanced Alternative are within the range of redevelopment alternatives and environmental impacts analyzed in the 2010 through 2015 SEPA environmental review for the project. A further goal of the Consistency Analysis is to verify that the changes in the Enhanced Alternative would require no additional mitigation measures. Development Types, Levels and Features The Quendall Terminals Environmental Consistency Analysis compares the types and levels of development and development features called for under the Enhanced Alternatives to the types, levels and features assumed in the 2010 through 2015 SEPA review. The Consistency Analysis determines that the types of development (residential, Quendall Terminals E-2 Environmental Consistency Analysis commercial and parks/open space) under the Enhanced Alternative would be within the types of uses assumed under the EIS redevelopment alternatives in the past SEPA review. The maximum levels of development under the Enhanced Alternative (692 residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space) would be within the maximum levels of development evaluated in the past SEPA review (particularly Alternative 1 analyzed in the 2010 DEIS with 800 residential units, 275,600 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail, restaurant and office] and 11.7 acres of parks/open space). Specific development features of the Enhanced Alternative (e.g., building height, bulk and scale; open space and related areas; parking and access; shoreline setback; wetland and shoreline area; building setbacks; view corridors; population and employment; grading; utilities; and fire lane and utility maintenance access road) would be within the ranges under the EIS alternatives as well, and are substantially similar to the Preferred Alternative. Environmental Impacts The Quendall Terminals Environmental Consistency Analysis compares the probable environmental impacts from redevelopment under the Enhanced Alternative to the probable impacts from redevelopment under the alternatives analyzed in the 2010 through 2015 SEPA review. The following elements of the environment are addressed in the 2010 through 2015 SEPA review and this Consistency Analysis: Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gases, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Transportation and Cultural Resources. More detailed analyses are provided in this report for: Transportation; Height, Bulk and Scale; Aesthetics/Views; and Parks and Recreation. The Consistency Analysis determines that the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative are within the impacts analyzed under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. Conclusion The Enhanced Alternative is within the range of development and probable environmental impacts analyzed in the 2010 through 2015 SEPA review of the Quendall Terminals project, and no additional mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. Chapter I COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE EIS ALTERNATIVES & ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE Quendall Terminals 1-1 Environmental Consistency Analysis CHAPTER 1 COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE EIS ALTERNATIVES & ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE Introduction The Applicant (Century Pacific, LP) is proposing mixed-use redevelopment, including multifamily residential, commercial (retail and restaurant) and parks/open space uses on the approximately 21.5-acre Quendall Terminals site located in northern Renton on the shores of Lake Washington. The site consists of an approximately 20.3-acre Main Property along Lake Washington and an approximately 1.2-acre Isolated Property to the northeast (see Figure 1-1, Regional Map and Figure 1-2, Vicinity Map). The Quendall Terminals site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and will undergo cleanup/remediation under the oversite of the EPA prior to redevelopment. Potential impacts to the environment associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process. The impact analyses in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review prepared for the project solely addressed impacts that may occur due to post clean-up redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site, and assumed an existing/baseline condition subsequent to cleanup/remediation. To date, four SEPA review documents have been published by the City of Renton on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project: • Quendall Terminals Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) (December 2010); • Quendall Terminals Environmental Impact Statement Addendum (October 2012); • Quendall Terminals Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (August 2015); and • Quendall Terminals Mitigation Document (August 2015). These documents are available for review at Renton City Hall and via download on the City of Renton Website – www.rentonwa.gov. The Applicant is currently seeking approval for the following plans/permits from the City: • Master Site Plan; • Binding Site Plan; and • Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Quendall Terminals Environmental Consistency Analysis Source: Google Maps, 2016 Figure 1-1 Regional Map North Not to Scale Quendall Terminals City of Renton Boundary Quendall Terminals Environmental Consistency Analysis Source: EA, Google Maps, 2016 Figure 1-2 Vicinity Map North Not to Scale City of Renton City Limits SITE (Isolated Property) SITE (Main Property) LAKE WASHINGTON Quendall Terminals 1-4 Environmental Consistency Analysis The City and the Applicant have initiated preparation of a Development Agreement for the project. During this process, an “Enhanced Alternative” has been created. The Quendall Terminals Environmental Consistency Analysis has been prepared to confirm that proposed development and associated environmental impacts under the Enhanced Alternative are within the range of redevelopment alternatives and impacts analyzed in the 2010 through 2015 SEPA environmental review for the project. This section of the consistency analysis compares the type and level of development, and other development features under the Enhanced Alternative to those under the alternatives in the past SEPA environmental review. 2010 DEIS Two redevelopment alternatives and a No Action alternative were described and analyzed in the DEIS: Alternative 1 – Application Mixed-use redevelopment on the Main Property would include: - 800 residential units; - Approximately 245,000 sq. ft. of office uses; - Approximately 21,600 sq. ft. of retail uses; - Approximately 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant uses; and - 2,171 parking spaces. No development would occur on the Isolated Property. Alternative 2 – Lower-Density Alternative Mixed-use redevelopment on the Main Property would include: - 708 residential units; - No office uses; - Approximately 21,600 sq. ft. of retail uses; - Approximately 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant uses; and - 1,364 parking spaces. No development would occur on the Isolated Property. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no new mixed-use redevelopment would occur on the Quendall Terminals site at this time. 2012 EIS Addendum Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS, a Preferred Alternative was voluntarily developed by the Applicant and the Applicant’s technical team based on additional Quendall Terminals 1-5 Environmental Consistency Analysis agency/community input (particularly from the EPA), and continued input and coordination with the City of Renton. Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to that described in the DEIS for the redevelopment alternatives, particularly Alternative 2, with certain exceptions, including: incorporation of a 100-foot minimum shoreline setback, reduction of the number of residential units, modulation of building heights to reduce impacts on adjacent uses and provision of a 20-foot wide fire lane/trail in the shoreline setback, if approved as part of EPA’s anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD Settlement. Preferred Alternative Mixed-use redevelopment on the Main Property would include: - 692 residential units; - No office uses; - Approximately 21,600 sq. ft. of retail uses; - Approximately 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant uses; and - 1,337 parking spaces. No development would occur on the Isolated Property. 2015 FEIS & 2015 MITIGATION DOCUMENT The Preferred Alternative described and analyzed in the EIS Addendum was maintained in the 2015 FEIS. Final project mitigation measures were included in the 2015 FEIS and in the 2015 Mitigation Document. 2016 CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS The City and the Applicant have been working on a Development Agreement for the Quendall Terminals project. Through this process, an Enhanced Alternative has been created. Redevelopment under the Enhanced Alternative would be similar to that under the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative in the 2012 EIS Addendum and 2015 FEIS, with several key differences, as described below. Quendall Terminals 1-6 Environmental Consistency Analysis Enhanced Alternative Mixed-use redevelopment on the Main Property would include: - 692 residential units; - No office uses; - Approximately 33,190 sq. ft. of retail uses; - Approximately 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant uses; and - 1,352 parking spaces. No development would occur on the Isolated Property. Key redevelopment assumptions under the Enhanced Alternative from the Development Agreement that would differ from those under the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative include: • Additional retail/restaurant/office and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) space would be provided along Street ‘B’, along the lakeside frontage and along other streets as necessary to qualify for a minimum of 50 percent of the building street frontage at a minimum depth of 20 feet; • An additional 1.3-acre public park would be included in the southwestern portion of the site; and • A future possible dock/pier associated with the public park could be provided (this dock is not proposed at this time and would be subject to future SEPA environmental review and subject to EPA consent). Table 1-1 compares the past EIS redevelopment alternatives to the Enhanced Alternative; additional detail is provided below. Types of Development As shown in Table 1-1, the types of development under the Enhanced Alternative (residential, commercial and parks/open space) are within the types of uses assumed under the EIS alternatives. Quendall Terminals 1-7 Environmental Consistency Analysis Table 1-1 COMPARISON OF 2010 – 2015 SEPA REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES & ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS - Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative Commercial Uses (Office, Retail and Restaurant) 275,600 sq. ft. (245,000 sq. ft. office, 21,600 sq. ft. retail, 9,000 sq. ft. restaurant) 30,600 sq. ft. (21,600 sq. ft. retail and 9,000 sq. ft. restaurant) 30,600 sq. ft. (21,600 sq. ft. retail and 9,000 sq. ft. restaurant) 42,190 sq. ft. (33,190 sq. ft. retail and 9,000 sq. ft. restaurant) Residential Units 800 units 708 units 692 units 692 units Maximum Building Height 77 ft. 67 ft. 64 ft. 64 ft. Number of Buildings 9 9 10 10 Residential Building Area 94,600 – 209,000 sq. ft. 77,000 – 112,800 sq. ft. 46,200 – 88,000 sq. ft. 62,400 – 101,975 sq. ft. Open Space & Related Areas1 11.7 acres1 11.8 acres1 10.6 acres1 12.9 acres1 Parking 2,171 spaces 1,364 spaces 1,337 spaces 1,352 spaces Shoreline Setback 50 ft. min. 50 ft. min. 100 ft. min. 100 ft. min. Building Setbacks from Adjacent Property Lines2 North: 38 ft. min.2 South: 37 ft. min.2 North: 38 ft. min.2 South: 42 ft. min.2 North: 38 ft. min.2 South: 42 ft. min.2 North: 42 ft..2 South: 47 ft. 2 View Corridors View corridors along Street ‘B’ and along driveways/parking areas at N. and S. ends of site View corridors along Street ‘B’ and along driveways/parking areas at N. and S. ends of site Larger view corridors along Street ‘B’ and along driveways/parking areas at N. and S. ends of site Larger view corridors along Street ‘B’ and along driveways/parking areas at N. and S. ends of site Site Population 1,300 residents 1,132 residents 1,108 residents 1,108 residents Site Employment 1,050 employees 50 employees 50 employees 62 employees Grading 53,000 - 133,000 CY fill 53,000 - 133,000 CY fill 53,000 – 133,000 CY fill 53,000 - 133,000 CY fill Utilities Sewer and water from City; stormwater mgmt. per applicable regulations Sewer and water from City; stormwater mgmt. per applicable regulations Sewer and water from City; stormwater mgmt. per applicable regulations Sewer and water from City; stormwater mgmt. per applicable regulations Fire Lane/Trail/ Pedestrian Promenade Shoreline trail inside 50-ft. shoreline setback Shoreline trail inside 50-ft. shoreline setback 20-ft. wide fire lane/trail inside 100-ft. shoreline setback 20-ft. wide enhanced fire & utility access lane outside 100-ft. shoreline setback & a shoreline trail inside the 100-ft. shoreline setback3. Source: Quendall Terminals SEPA Review, 2010 - 2015 and Lance Mueller & Associates, 2016. 1 For purposes of this Environmental Consistency Analysis, open space and related areas include: the enhanced fire and utility access lane; other pedestrian circulation; site landscaping, parks and open space; and the shoreline setback area. 2 Setbacks are measured from the property line to the nearest proposed structure. 3 The shoreline trail would require approval as part of EPA’s anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD Settlement. Quendall Terminals 1-8 Environmental Consistency Analysis Levels of Development The maximum development levels under the Enhanced Alternative (692 residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant] and 12.9 acres of parks/open space) are within the maximum levels of development evaluated in the past SEPA review (in particular, DEIS Alternative 1 which included 800 residential units, 275,600 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail, restaurant and office] and 11.7 acres of parks/open space). Other Development Features Building Height, Bulk & Scale The maximum building height under the Enhanced Alternative would be 64 feet, the same as under the Preferred Alternative, and less than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As shown in Table 1-2, the majority of the proposed buildings would be the same heights as under the Preferred Alternative, including those adjacent to Barbee Mill (e.g., building SW 4 in the southwestern portion of the site, which would be 4 stories tall). Three of the proposed buildings located in the eastern and central portions of the site under the Enhanced Alternative (buildings NW 2, SE 2 and NE 2) would be 6 stories tall, one-story taller than under the Preferred Alternative. A total of 10 buildings would be constructed on site under the Enhanced Alternative, the same number as under the Preferred Alternative, and one building more than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. The residential building areas would range from 62,400 to 101,975 sq. ft., greater than the 46,200 to 88,000 sq. ft. under the Preferred Alternative, but less than the 94,600 to 209,000 sq. ft. under DEIS Alternative 1. Table 1-2 BUILDING HEIGHT – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE & ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE Building Preferred Alternative (Total # of Floors1) Enhanced Alternative (Total # of Floors1) SW 1 6 6 SW 2 6 6 SW 3 5 5 SW 4 4 4 NW 1 6 6 NW 2 5 6 SE 1 6 6 SE 2 5 6 NE 1 6 6 NE 2 5 6 Source: Lance Mueller & Associates, 2016. 1 Includes parking level. Quendall Terminals 1-9 Environmental Consistency Analysis Open Space & Related Areas A total of 12.9 acres of open space and related areas would be provided under the Enhanced Alternative, more than under any of the other EIS alternatives. This area would include a new 1.3-acre public park located in the southwestern portion of the site. A breakdown of the open space and related areas is provided below. • Enhanced Fire and Utility Access Lane 0.6 ac. • Other Pedestrian Circulation 1.5 ac. • Site Landscaping, Park & Open Space 2.9 ac. • Shoreline Setback Area 3.4 ac. • Courtyard Landscaping 3.4 ac • Isolated Property 1.2 ac. 12.9 ac.* *Any minor errors in addition are due to rounding. Parking & Access Under the Enhanced Alternative, 1,352 parking spaces would be provided within the proposed buildings, in two surface parking areas and in one deck parking area. These spaces would be more than the 1,337 spaces under the Preferred Alternative and less than the 2,171 spaces under DEIS Alternative 1. The proposed spaces would provide an adequate supply for the proposed uses (see Chapter 2 – Transportation and Appendix A for details). Access to the site would continue to be provided from the east from two points: one from N 43rd Street and the other from Ripley Lane N. Three public roads (Street ‘A’, Street ‘B’ and Street ‘C’) and two private drives (Drive ‘E’ and ‘F’) would be constructed onsite. A center left-turn lane that was included on Street ‘A’ under the Preferred Alternative was not found to be needed and was eliminated under the Enhanced Alternative because single-lane approaches at each of the Street ‘A’ intersections would provide acceptable traffic operations (see the Left-Turn Lane Analysis for Street ‘A’- Enhanced Alternative Memo in Appendix A for details). Certain access points to parking areas within the buildings would be adjusted under the Enhanced Alternative as well. Shoreline Setback A minimum 100-foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of Lake Washington would be provided under the Enhanced Alternative, the same as under the Preferred Alternative and greater than the minimum 50-foot shoreline setback under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. This area would accommodate any retained/re-established and/or expanded wetlands, associated buffers and all other habitat restoration areas Quendall Terminals 1-10 Environmental Consistency Analysis required as part of the EPA’s anticipated Record of Decision [ROD] for the remediation project or a Natural Resource Damage [NRD] settlement. The minimum 100-foot setback area would total 3.4 acres under the Enhanced Alternative, the same area as under the Preferred Alternative 1. Building Setbacks Under the Enhanced Alternative the minimum building setback from the north property line would be 42 feet and from the south property line would be 47 feet. These building setbacks would be greater than under any of the other EIS alternatives. View Corridors Under the Enhanced Alternative, view corridors would be available along Street ‘B’ and along the driveways/parking areas at the north and south ends of site. These corridors would be similar to under the Preferred Alternative and slightly larger than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. Population & Employment The population under the Enhanced Alternative is estimated to be 1,108 residents, the same as under the Preferred Alternative, and less than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. The employment under the Enhanced Alternative is estimated to be 62 employees, more than under the Preferred Alternative and DEIS Alternative 2, but less than under DEIS Alternative 1. Grading The same amount of grading is estimated to be required for site development under the Enhanced Alternative and the EIS alternatives: 53,000 to 133,000 cubic yards of fill on the Main Property (this is additional grading beyond the grading required to accomplish site cleanup/remediation under the site’s status as a Superfund site). Utilities Utilities, including water, sewer and stormwater control, would be provided for the Enhanced Alternative, as described for the other SEPA Alternatives. 1 “Natural Public Open Space” was reported for the EIS alternatives in Table 4.7-1 of the EIS Addendum. This area included the minimum shoreline setback area, as well as site landscaping outside of the setback area. Without the landscape area, the shoreline setback area under the Preferred Alternative and Enhanced Alternative would be the same (3.4 acres). The overall open space and related areas under the EIS alternatives is correctly shown in Table 1- 1 of this Consistency Analysis. Quendall Terminals 1-11 Environmental Consistency Analysis Enhanced Fire & Utility Access Lane Similar to under the Preferred Alternative, a publically accessible 20-foot wide fire and utility access lane would be provided on the west side of the westernmost buildings and a soft surface trail would be provided within the 100-foot minimum shoreline setback under the Enhanced Alternative; the trail would require approval as part of EPA’s anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD Settlement. The fire/utility lane under the Enhanced Alternative would be located outside of the 100-foot minimum shoreline setback area and would connect to the north and south site boundaries via 6- foot wide, soft surface trails. DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would include a narrower soft surface trail within 50-foot minimum shoreline setback area, if approved as part of EPA’s anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD Settlement. Conclusion In conclusion, the types of development (residential, commercial and parks/open space) under the Enhanced Alternative are within the types of uses assumed under the EIS redevelopment alternatives in the past SEPA review. The maximum levels of development under the Enhanced Alternative (692 residential units, 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space) are within the maximum levels of development evaluated in the past SEPA review (particularly Alternative 1 analyzed in the 2010 DEIS with 800 residential units, 275,600 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail, restaurant and office] and 11.7 acres of parks/open space). Specific development features of the Enhanced Alternative (e.g., building height, bulk and scale; open space and related areas; parking and access; shoreline setback; wetland and shoreline area; building setbacks; view corridors; population and employment; grading; utilities; and fire lane/pedestrian promenade) would be within the ranges under the EIS alternatives as well, and are substantially similar to the Preferred Alternative. Chapter 2 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS UNDER THE EIS ALTERNATIVES & ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE Quendall Terminals 2-1 Environmental Consistency Analysis CHAPTER 2 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS UNDER THE EIS ALTERNATIVES & ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE 2.1 Summary Table The “Comparison of Impacts under the EIS Alternatives & the Enhanced Alternative” table in Appendix B provides a overview of the probable impacts that would result from the EIS redevelopment alternatives and the proposed Enhanced Alternative. The potential impacts that would result from DEIS Alternative 1 (the EIS alternative with the greatest overall level of development; see Chapter 1 for details) are listed in the first column and the potential impacts of the other EIS redevelopment alternatives and the Enhanced Alternative are compared to these impacts. The matrix addresses all of the elements of the environment that were analyzed in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS (i.e., Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy – Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land and Shoreline Use, Relationship to Plans and Policies, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, Transportation/Traffic and Cultural Resources). Significant unavoidable adverse impacts are listed, as applicable. 2.2 Key Topic Areas Several “key topic areas” have been identified from the table in Appendix B as the focus for comparison of the Enhanced Alternative and the EIS alternatives. These are the areas where the Enhanced Alternative could have the greatest potential for differences in impacts on the environment relative to the EIS alternatives. The key topic areas discussed in this chapter of the Consistency Analysis are: • Transportation; • Building Height, Bulk and Scale; • Aesthetics/Views; and • Parks and Recreation. Transportation Additional transportation analysis was conducted for the Consistency Analysis to confirm that the potential impacts under the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of impacts identified under the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review for the project. Quendall Terminals 2-2 Environmental Consistency Analysis Past SEPA Review The relationship between proposed redevelopment on the Quendall Terminals site and the off-site transportation system was evaluated in detail in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS. These analyses relied on field-verified transportation counts/data, the latest traffic forecasting data available and the latest industry standards and study methods to present a reasonable determination of potential transportation impacts for SEPA review purposes. Potential transportation impacts from the proposed project could occur in the following areas: intersection level of service (LOS), queuing, site access and circulation, public transportation, non-motorized transportation and parking. The analysis of potential transportation impacts in the DEIS was provided for two future baseline transportation networks to reflect future planned Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) transportation improvements in the site vicinity: 1. With I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange Improvements (I-405 Improvements); and 2. Without I-405 Improvements. 2010 DEIS The DEIS indicated that there are existing capacity and queuing issues on certain roadways in the site vicinity. For example, the I-405 /NE 44th Street Southbound Ramps intersection currently operates at LOS F in the AM peak hour. The DEIS focused on DEIS Alternative 1; impacts for DEIS Alternative 2 were assumed to be similar to or less than DEIS Alternative 1 due to its reduced level of redevelopment. The DEIS determined that under Alternative 1 without I-405 Improvements and no project mitigation assumed, four intersections would operate at LOS E/F at build-out of the Quendall Terminals site: • Lake Washington Boulevard (I-405 Northbound Ramps)/NE 44th Street; • I-405 Southbound Ramps/NE 44th Street; • Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard; and • Lake Washington Boulevard (Garden Avenue) at Park View Avenue N. Excessive southbound queues of approximately 700 to 800 ft. in length would be anticipated at the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection southbound on Ripley Lane under Alternative 1 without I-405 Improvements and with no project mitigation; these queues would block key access intersections. Under DEIS Alternative 1 without I-405 Improvements and with no project mitigation, the site access at Ripley Lane N would operate at LOS F. Quendall Terminals 2-3 Environmental Consistency Analysis Given the site location and current lack of transit service in the site vicinity, it was anticipated that residents and employees of Quendall Terminals would primarily rely on automobile transportation and significant impacts from the proposed project on public transportation were not anticipated. Increases in population from the project would result in increased demand for non-motorized transportation facilities and parking onsite. The DEIS concluded that with or without the I-405 Improvements, and with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures, no significant transportation-related impacts were expected (see DEIS Section 3.9, Transportation/Traffic and Appendix H for details). 2012 EIS Addendum & 2015 FEIS The EIS Addendum included an updated transportation analysis to respond to transportation-related comments received on the DEIS and provide analysis of the Preferred Alternative. The updated analysis in the EIS Addendum determined that at project build-out, with no I-405 Improvements and with no project mitigation assumed, three intersections would operate at LOS F under the Preferred Alternative: • Lake Washington Boulevard (I-405 Northbound Ramps)/NE 44th Street; • I-405 Southbound Ramps/NE 44th Street; and, • Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street An updated queuing analysis was conducted for the EIS Addendum. Under the Preferred Alternative at build-out without I-405 Improvements and with no project mitigation, excessive southbound queues of approximately 800 to 900 ft. in length would be expected southbound on Ripley Lane at the stop-controlled Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. The site access and circulation analysis was updated in the EIS Addendum as well. Under the Preferred Alternative without I-405 Improvements and with no project mitigation, the southbound approach to the Ripley Lane/N 44th Street intersection would operate at LOS F. Public transportation, non-motorized transportation and parking impacts for the Preferred Alternative would be similar to the analysis in the DEIS. In response to comments received on the DEIS and EIS Addendum, additional transportation analysis was conducted in the FEIS for the Preferred Alternative, including Quendall Terminals 2-4 Environmental Consistency Analysis on: the Park Avenue corridor and I-405 Exit 5 (N 30th Street) interchange, 2017 build-out year, 2014 North Renton Traffic Study and updated trip generation to the 9th edition of the ITE Manual. The EIS Addendum and FEIS concluded that with or without the I-405 Improvements, and with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures, no significant transportation-related impacts were expected for the Preferred Alternative (see EIS Addendum Sections 3.4 and 4.8, Transportation, and Appendix E, and FEIS Chapter 2, Key Topic Areas – Transportation and Appendices B and C for details). 2016 Consistency Analysis Additional transportation analysis was conducted for this Consistency Analysis to confirm that the potential impacts under the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of impacts identified under the EIS alternatives. The following areas were reviewed: • Trip generation; • Parking; • NE 44th Street/I-405 Southbound Ramp operation; and • Vehicle queuing. Trip Generation The Enhanced Alternative is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and 545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. These would represent approximately 173 more daily trips, no net change in AM peak hour trips and 15 more PM peak hour trips than the Preferred Alternative, and would represent 3,153 fewer daily trips, 431 fewer AM peak hour trips and 406 fewer PM peak hour trips than Alternative 1. Therefore, trip generation under the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range analyzed under the EIS alternatives. Parking The Enhanced Alternative would provide 1,352 parking spaces. According to the City of Renton Municipal Code in place in 2010 when a complete application for Quendall Terminals was submitted, 1,368 off-street parking spaces would be required for the Enhanced Alternative. Therefore, there would be a deficit of 16 spaces based on this standard. However, the principal of shared use was not incorporated into the calculated 2010 parking requirement. This principal would reduce the amount of required parking. Also, the minimum parking standards have been reduced in the current City Code. Therefore, the Enhanced Alternative would provide an adequate supply of parking. Quendall Terminals 2-5 Environmental Consistency Analysis I-405 Southbound Ramps/NE 44th Street Operation The DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS identified the I-405 Southbound Ramps/NE 44th Street intersection as approaching capacity under all of the EIS alternatives (e.g., this intersection would operate at LOS E, close to LOS F, at buildout under the alternatives with the identified project mitigation and without the I-405 improvements. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis of the Enhanced Alternative was conducted at this intersection to determine if further project mitigation measures would be required with the Enhanced Alternative. Under the Enhanced Alternative with the identified project mitigation and no I-405 improvements, this intersection would operate at LOS E with 78 seconds of delay, which is considered an acceptable level of operation by the City of Renton, and would be the same as under the Preferred Alternative. Queuing The DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS discussed vehicle queuing impacts of the EIS alternatives in the site vicinity. Under the Preferred Alternative at buildout without the I-405 improvements and with no project mitigation assumed, excessive queues of approximately 800 to 900 feet in length are expected southbound on Ripley Lane at the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. With proposed mitigation and with or without the I-405 improvements, the southbound queue would be reduced to approximately 200 feet. Under the Enhanced Alternative with proposed mitigation, with or with or without the I-405 improvements, the addition of an estimated nine trips exiting the site during the PM peak hour on Ripley Lane would not measurably increase the estimated vehicle queuing on Ripley Lane relative to the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, the transportation impacts of the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of impacts identified in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, with or without the I-405 improvements, significant transportation impacts are not anticipated. (See Appendix A for details on the transportation study for this Consistency Analysis.) Building Height, Bulk and Scale Past SEPA Review The potential height, bulk and scale impacts of the Quendall Terminals Project were analyzed in detail in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS. These analyses focused on the compatibility of the proposed buildings with existing and planned buildings in the site vicinity, and the consistency of the project with applicable City of Renton plans, policies and regulations. Quendall Terminals 2-6 Environmental Consistency Analysis 2010 DEIS DEIS Alternative 1 included nine new mixed-use buildings, up to approximately 77 feet in height, ranging from approximately 94,600 to 209,000 square feet in residential building area on the site. DEIS Alternative 2 included nine new mixed-use buildings, up to approximately 67 feet in height, ranging from approximately 77,000 to 112,800 sq. ft. in residential building area. Residential densities of 46 dwelling units per net acre and 40 dwelling units per net acre, respectively, were analyzed under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 (see Table 1-1 in this Consistency Analysis). The DEIS indicated that under DEIS Alternative 1 and 2, proposed new buildings onsite would be greater in height and bulk than the adjacent residential buildings to the south (Barbee Mill) and other single family residential buildings in the area, but were generally similar to buildings in surrounding commercial and planned development to the north and east (Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility and planned Hawk’s Landing development). While the proposed buildings at Quendall Terminals were greater in height and bulk than adjacent residences to the south, the proposed building setbacks from the south property line were a minimum of 37 feet under Alternative 1 and 42 feet under Alternative 2, respectively, including landscape screening, driveways and surface parking areas (see Table 1-1 in this Consistency Analysis). Overall, the height, bulk and scale of proposed buildings under the Alternatives 1 and 2 was considered to generally be consistent with the existing urban development in the area and applicable provisions of the City of Renton Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the DEIS concluded that significant land use impacts were not anticipated under Alternatives 1 and 2. (See DEIS Section 3.5, Land and Shoreline Use, and Section 3.6, Relationship to Plans, Policies, and Regulations, for details.) 2012 EIS Addendum & 2015 FEIS The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum and FEIS included similar types of land uses and levels of development to DEIS Alternative 2. However, modifications were made in the Preferred Alternative to enhance the compatibility of proposed development with surrounding uses (i.e., reduction of overall development level, modulation of building heights across the site, modifications in building materials and addition of landscaping, see Table 1-1 in this Consistency Analysis). The Preferred Alternative included ten new mixed-use buildings, up to 64 feet in height, with from approximately 46,200 to 88,000 sq. ft. of residential building area. Proposed Quendall Terminals 2-7 Environmental Consistency Analysis Building SW 4 located adjacent to the southwestern property line was four-stories high, buildings in the northern portion of the site were five-stories high and buildings in the central portion of the site were five to six stories high. A residential density of approximately 32 dwelling units per net acre was achieved under the Preferred Alternative. A proposed building setback of 37 feet from the property line was provided between the proposed buildings and the adjacent residential development to the south (see Table 1-1 in this Consistency Analysis). The FEIS concluded that proposed development under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. Proposed individual buildings under Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than certain existing commercial and multifamily buildings to the north and east of the site (i.e., Seahawks Training Facility, proposed Hawk’s Landing and multifamily residential areas to the east of I-405) and greater in height and bulk than existing single family residential buildings to the south of the site (i.e., Barbee Mill). With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts were not anticipated. (See EIS Addendum Section 4.5, Land and Shoreline Use and FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas for details.) 2016 Consistency Analysis The Enhanced Alternative would include similar types of land uses and levels of development to the Preferred Alternative. Similar to the Preferred Alternative, the Enhanced Alternative would include modifications to enhance the compatibility of proposed development with surrounding uses (i.e., reduction of overall development level, modulation of building heights across the site, modifications in building materials and addition of landscaping relative to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, see Table 1-1 in this Consistency Analysis). The Enhanced Alternative would include additional retail/restaurant/office and street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) space along Street ‘B’, along the lakeside frontage and along other streets as necessary to qualify for a minimum of 50 percent of the building street frontage at a minimum depth of 20 feet. Like the Preferred Alternative, the Enhanced Alternative would include ten new mixed- use buildings up to 64 feet in height. Residential building area would range from approximately 62,400 to 101,975 sq. ft. in size. Proposed Building SW 4 located adjacent to the southwestern property line would be four stories high; Building SW 3 further east would be five stories high, the remaining buildings in the northern and central portions of the site would be six stories high. Three of the proposed buildings located in the eastern and central portions of the site under the Enhanced Alternative Quendall Terminals 2-8 Environmental Consistency Analysis (buildings NW 2, SE 2 and NE 2) would be one-story taller than under the Preferred Alternative. Residential density would be similar to under the Preferred Alternative. A proposed building setback of 47 feet from the property line would be provided between the proposed buildings and south property line (see Table 1-1 in this Consistency Analysis). Like the Preferred Alternative, proposed development under the Enhanced Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. Proposed individual buildings under Enhanced Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than certain existing commercial and multifamily buildings to the north and east of the site (i.e., Seahawks Training Facility, proposed Hawk’s Landing and multifamily residential areas to the east of I-405) and greater in height and bulk than existing single family/paired homes to the south of the site (i.e., Barbee Mill). Therefore, the land use impacts of the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of impacts analyzed in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives. And, with implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts are not anticipated. Aesthetics/Views Past SEPA Review The aesthetic character and viewshed impacts resulting from the proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site were analyzed in detail in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS. These analyses focused on the changing aesthetic character from an open, partially vegetated property to a mixed-use development, including view corridors and viewing areas, and sources of light, glare and shadows, consistent with the City of Renton’s Comprehensive Plan. 2010 DEIS Under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, redevelopment on the site was intended to be aesthetically pleasing, and would represent a compact, urban form and maintain consistency throughout the site. Architectural features and landscaping would be provided to enhance the project’s visual appeal. A visual analysis was conducted as part of the DEIS for both Alternatives 1 and 2. Ten representative viewpoints were selected, consisting of public locations such as streets, sidewalks, Lake Washington, and a public park where views of the site and vicinity are possible. As indicated in the DEIS, redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site under both DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would block or partially block views toward Lake Quendall Terminals 2-9 Environmental Consistency Analysis Washington from certain viewpoints. View corridors would be provided along Street ‘B’ and along private driveways at the north and south ends of the site under both DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. Views toward Lake Washington would be provided along the proposed shoreline trail, the east/west roadway at the north and south end of the site, as well as semi-private views from the building courtyards for project residents. In general, view corridors would be slightly greater under DEIS Alternative 2 than under DEIS Alternative 1 due to less dense redevelopment. (See DEIS Section 3.7, Aesthetics/Views, for details.) 2012 EIS Addendum & 2015 FEIS The Preferred Alternative would include a level of redevelopment similar to DEIS Alternative 2; however, certain redevelopment assumptions were modified to enhance the visual character of the site, including increased view corridors, building height modulation and building design features more compatible with surrounding development. Additional visual analysis of the Preferred Alternative was conducted for the EIS Addendum and FEIS, including analysis of six key viewpoints (five from the DEIS viewpoints and one new viewpoint along Lake Washington Boulevard N). Based on the analysis, view impacts under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those identified under DEIS Alternative 2. However, under the Preferred Alternative, certain view corridors through the site would be larger than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. The view corridor along Street ‘B’ would be approximately 8 feet wider under the Preferred Alternative than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. View corridors under the Preferred Alternative would also be larger along the southern boundary of the site and increased viewing opportunities would be provided due to building height modulation which would allow for greater views of Lake Washington and Mercer Island from certain viewpoints. (See EIS Addendum Sections 3.2 and 4.6, Aesthetics/Views, and FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topics for details.) 2016 Consistency Analysis The Enhanced Alternative would include a level of redevelopment comparable to under the Preferred Alternative. Redevelopment assumptions for the Enhanced Alternative were similarly modified to enhance the visual character of the site, including increased view corridors, building height modulation and building design features more compatible with surrounding development. Quendall Terminals 2-10 Environmental Consistency Analysis View impacts under the Enhanced Alternative would be similar to those identified under the Preferred Alternative. As under Preferred Alternative, the view corridor along Street ‘B’ would be approximately 8 feet wider under the Enhanced Alternative than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. Also, view corridors would be larger along the southern boundary of the site and increased viewing opportunities would be provided due to more building height modulation than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, which would allow for greater views of Lake Washington and Mercer Island from certain viewpoints. Public views would also be possible from the enhanced fire and utility access road. Therefore, the aesthetic impacts of the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of impacts identified in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives. And, with implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant aesthetic impacts are not anticipated. Parks and Recreation Past SEPA Review 2010 DEIS As described in the 2010 DEIS, redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would generate increases in on-site residents and employees, which would result in associated increases in demands on park and recreation facilities in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site, including some that are exceeding their capacity during the summer. Redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would further contribute to these capacity issues. Additional parks and recreation facilities could be needed in the City of Renton based on the City’s Level of Service (LOS) standards and the increased population on the site. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, open space and related areas would be provided onsite that would help meet the demand for passive recreation facilities from project residents and employees. However, the demand for active recreation facilities would not be satisfied onsite. Approximately 11.7 to 11.8 acres of open space and related areas would be provided under Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively, including paved plazas, natural areas, landscape areas, unpaved trails and sidewalks. Approximately 3.4 acres of natural open space area that would be visually and physically accessible to the general public at certain times of day, including the natural shoreline area and the proposed shoreline trail, would be provided. These open space and related areas may or may not meet the City’s standards, regulations and procedures for open space. Quendall Terminals 2-11 Environmental Consistency Analysis If approved as part of EPA’s anticipated ROD for the remediation project and any NRD Settlement, a publically accessible trail would be located within the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback area under Alternatives 1 and 2, consistent with the City’s 1983 SMP regulations The Applicant would also pay park and recreation impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. These fees would help to offset the impacts of proposed new residential development on park and recreation facilities, open space and trails. 2012 EIS Addendum & 2015 FEIS Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum and FEIS would result in increases in on-site population and employees, which would result in associated increases in demands on park and recreation facilities in the site vicinity, and would contribute to capacity issues at nearby parks during the summer. Additional parks and recreation facilities could be needed in the City of Renton based on the City’s LOS standards and the increased population on the site. The Preferred Alternative would include open space and related areas onsite to help meet the demand for passive recreation from project residents and employees, but not the demand for active recreation facilities. Approximately 10.6 acres of open space and related area would be provided. These open space and related areas may or may not meet the City’s standards, regulations and procedures for open space. Publically accessible pedestrian facilities were proposed along the shoreline under the Preferred Alternative. A shoreline trail would be provided on the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, inside the 100-foot minimum shoreline setback area, if approved as part of EPA’s anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD Settlement. The Applicant would also pay park and recreation impact fees under the Preferred Alternative. 2016 Consistency Analysis The Enhanced Alternative would result in increases in on-site population and employees, which would result in associated increases in demands on park and recreation facilities in the site vicinity, and would contribute to capacity issues at nearby parks during the summer. These impacts would be similar to the Preferred Alternative but less than DEIS Alternative 1. Additional park and recreation facilities could be needed in the City of Renton based on the City’s LOS standards and the increased population on the site. Quendall Terminals 2-12 Environmental Consistency Analysis The Enhanced Alternative would include open space and related areas onsite to help meet the demand for passive recreation from project residents and employees, as well as some of the demand for active recreation facilities. A total of 12.9 acres of parks/open space would be provided under the Enhanced Alternative, more than under any of the other EIS Alternatives. This area includes a new 1.3-acre public park located in the southwestern portion of the site. A future possible dock/pier associated with the public park could be provided (this dock is not proposed at this time and would be subject to future SEPA environmental review and consent from EPA). These open space and related areas are expected to meet the City’s standards, regulations and procedures for open space. Similar to the other EIS Alternatives, publically accessible pedestrian facilities are proposed along the shoreline under the Enhanced Alternative. A 20-foot wide enhanced fire and utility access lane would be provided on the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite. The fire and utility access lane would be located outside of the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area and would connect to the north and south site boundaries via a 6-foot wide, soft surface trail. A soft surface trail would also be provided within the 100-foot shoreline setback area, if approved as part of EPA’s anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD settlement. The Applicant would also pay park and recreation impact fees to help offset the impacts of the project on park and recreation facilities, open space and trails. Therefore, the parks and recreation impacts of the Enhanced Alternative would be within the range of impacts analyzed in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives. And, with implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant parks and recreation impacts are not anticipated. Conclusion In conclusion, the impacts of development under the Enhanced Alternative – including on transportation; building height, bulk and scale; aesthetics/views; and parks and recreation -- are within the impacts analyzed for the EIS alternatives in the past SEPA review. No new mitigation measures are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document, and there are no significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated. APPENDICES APPENDIX A TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS FOR ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE TENW Transportation Engineering NorthWest Transportation Planning | Design | Traffic Impact & Operations PO Box 65254, Seattle, WA 98155 | Office (206) 361-7333 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 8, 2017 TO: Gretchen Brunner, Senior Planner EA Engineering FROM: Michael J. Read, PE, Principal TENW SUBJECT: Quendall Terminals EIS – Consistency Analysis TENW Project 3178 This memorandum documents a consistency analysis of specific transportation evaluations documented in the original Quendall Terminals EIS, Quendall Terminals FEIS, and Quendall Terminals Supplemental Transportation Review based upon the „Enhanced Alternative‰ developed in close coordination between the applicant and the City of Renton in November 2016. Transportation-related items included in the consistency review:  Preparation of an updated trip generation analysis of the increased retail space within the development, using updated trip generation rates published by ITE in the Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012.  Preparation an updated parking code analysis and parking demand analysis (if warranted) to evaluate the adequacy of on-site parking, shared parking potential, and identify any parking management techniques that should be considered if necessary.  Prepare an updated sensitivity analysis at the critical intersection ramp junction of NE 44th Street/I-405 to confirm the transportation mitigation conclusions and findings of the original EIS for Quendall Terminals is consistent under the Enhanced Alternative. Project Trip Generation – Enhanced Alternative Based upon the original date of the EIS analysis and the proposed minor increase in floor area for ground floor retail space as part of the Enhanced Alternative, an updated trip generation analysis was completed. Since the original EIS, the Institute of Transportation Engineers has published an updated edition of the Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012. As noted above, a small increase in retail (approximately 12,965 square-feet) is now proposed as part of the Enhanced Alternative which includes:  692 apartment units (no change from Preferred Alternative).  9,000 square-feet of restaurant use (no change from Preferred Alternative).  33,190 square-feet of ground floor retail uses (net increase from 20,225 square-feet in the Preferred Alternative by 12,965 square-feet)  1,352 on-site parking stalls Quendall Terminals EIS Transportation Consistency Analysis TENW page 2 February 8, 2017 Consistent with the original Quendall Terminals DEIS, Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum, and Quendall Terminals FEIS, very conservative trip generation estimation methods were utilized in evaluating project traffic impacts. As such, similar factors through factoring of published residential trip generation rates (10 percent higher than ITE rates) and conservative internalization factors consistent with the Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition, ITE, were utilized. Average trip rates for Apartments (ITE land use code 220), Shopping Center (ITE land use code 820), and High- Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant were used as the basis for estimating vehicular trips of the Enhanced Alternative. As shown in Table 1, a net total of approximately 5,829 daily, 435 a.m. peak hour (107 entering, 328 exiting), and 545 p.m. peak hour vehicular trips (346 entering and 199 exiting) would be generated at full buildout conditions under the Enhanced Alternative. As shown, the Enhanced Alternative would result in approximately 173 more daily trips, no net change in a.m. peak hour trips, and 15 more p.m. peak hour trips than Preferred Alternative evaluated in the Quendall Terminal EIS documents. As such, the relative impact to traffic operations within the study area would be very similar, but slightly more (less than a 3 percent increase in total site trip generation in the p.m. peak hour) than those disclosed and evaluated under the most recently developed Preferred Alternative. Detailed trip generation tables of the Enhanced Alternative are provided in Attachment A. An additional comparative analysis between the Enhanced Alternative and Alternative 1 evaluated in the DEIS is also provided in Attachment A. As shown in Attachment B, an estimated 431 fewer a.m. peak hour trips, 406 fewer p.m. peak hour trips, and 3,153 fewer daily trips would be generated under the Enhanced Alternative when compared to the DEIS Alternative 1 (Original Application). This represents a significant overall reduction in vehicle trip generation in the upper range of land use alternatives considered in the Quendall Terminals DEIS. Table 1: Enhanced Alternative Project Trip Generation Comparison with Preferred Alternative Land Use ITE Land Use Code 1 Size 2 A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Daily Trip Generation Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Apartments 220 692 DU 70 282 352 278 149 424 4,605 10% Factor on Residential Uses 8 28 36 28 16 47 460 Retail 820 30,190 sf GLA 20 13 33 59 63 123 1,417 Restaurant 932 9,000 sf GFA 53 44 97 53 36 89 1,144 2016 Enhanced Alternative Gross Trips 151 367 518 418 265 683 7,626 Less Internal Trips 3 -21 -21 -42 -40 -40 -80 -1,176 Less Pass-By Trips 3 -23 -18 -41 -32 -26 -58 -621 2016 Enhanced Alternative Net Trips 107 328 435 346 199 545 5,829 2015 Preferred Alternative Net Trip Generation 104 331 435 340 190 530 5,656 Difference in Enhanced Alternative Compared to Preferred Alternative +3 -3 0 +6 +9 +15 +173 1. Trip rates based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012. 2. DU is Dwelling Unit, GFA is Gross Floor Area, and GLA is Gross Leasable Area. 3. Internal and pass-by determined based upon documented average rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004. Quendall Terminals EIS Transportation Consistency Analysis TENW page 3 February 8, 2017 Parking Analysis – Enhanced Alternative Table 2 summarizes minimum off-street parking requirements based on City of Renton Municipal Code for the proposed mix of land uses. Although substantial reductions in minimum requirements in off-street parking has been adopted within current City municipal code, this analysis of parking requirements is based on those code provisions in force at the time of complete application for Quendall Terminals in 2010. As shown, a total of 1,368 stalls would have normally have been required under City code when the Quendall Terminals project was vested in 2010, resulting in a 16-stall stall deficit compared against the proposed 1,352 stalls. This code requirement does not take into consideration shared parking potential between the various proposed uses on site, which have differing peaks throughout the course of the day, and is therefore, considered conservative. Peak residential demand occurs after 9:00 p.m., when retail demand is non-existent and restaurant demand has diminished significantly. Under current City code, only 828 stalls would be required for proposed land uses; significantly less than 2010 code provisions. In addition, the latest parking demand models (King County Right Size Parking Model, Attachment B) for apartment uses specific to this site determined that only 1.34 stalls for each dwelling unit, on average, should be built to serve residential uses (dedicating 928 stalls). Given these factors, no additional parking analysis is required as the applicant proposes to designate approximately 1.73 stalls for each apartment unit. Table 2: City Parking Code Requirements Land Use Size Code Rate Required Off-Street Parking (stalls) Enhanced Alternative Retail 30,190 sf 4.0 stalls/1,000 sf 121 Multifamily Residential 692 units 1.75 stalls/DU 1,211 Restaurant (seating area) 9,000 sf 4 stalls/1,000 sf 36 Total 1,368 stalls Proposed 1,352 stalls Surplus/(Deficit) - 16 stalls DU ă Dwelling unit. sf ă square- feet. Source: Renton Municipal Code for Off-Street Parking, 2010 Regulations. Sensitivity Analysis of Ramp Intersection Level of Service As noted in the Quendall Terminals FEIS, Table 2-1, with the Preferred Alternative under the future regional network scenario that did not include I-405 Widening, the applicantÊs mitigation along Lake Washinton Boulevard and at the NE 44th Street / I-405 Interchange noted one intersection near capacity with buildout of the project. During the a.m. peak hour, the intersection ramp junction of the I-405 southbound ramp of NE 44th Street was evaluated for level of service operations to confirm the transportation mitigation conclusions and findings of the original EIS for Quendall Terminals is consistent under the Enhanced Alternative. Although in aggregate there is Quendall Terminals EIS Transportation Consistency Analysis TENW page 4 February 8, 2017 not a change in total a.m. peak hour trip generation under the Enhanced Alternative, a slight shift in directional trips are expected with increased retail uses (3 additional trips). With a majority of traffic expected to enter/exit the site via or through the NE 44th Street and I-405 Interchange system, the intersection that includes the southbound on/off-ramps is forecast to operate at LOS E with an average delay of 78 seconds per vehicle assuming with both signal control and channelization upgrades outlined in the Quendall Terminals FEIS. As shown in Attachment C, this intersection is forecast to remain at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour with the Enhanced Alternative at buildout. Vehicle Queues As documented in the Quendall Terminals FEIS (May 2015), updated vehicle queuing was evaluated under the Preferred Alternative. Under the Preferred Alternative at buildout without I-405 Improvements and with no project mitigation assumed, excessive southbound queues of approximately 800 to 900 feet in length would be expected southbound on Ripley Lane at the stop-controlled Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. To address the excessive queuing at this location, project mitigation would be provided in the vicinity of the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection with or without the I-405 Improvements. With implementation of the project mitigation, the southbound queue for left turns on Ripley Lane would be reduced to approximately 200 feet with or without I-405 improvements. With implementation of the Enhanced Alternative considered in this consistency analysis, the addition of an estimated 9 trips exiting the site during the p.m. peak hour on Ripley Lane would have no measurable increase in the estimated vehicle queues previously identified that would be mitigated by the Project at the Ripley Lane and Lake Washington Boulevard intersection and adjacent ramp junctions with I-405 (see vehicle queuing results in Attachment C). Conclusions As described above, the transportation consistency analyses was prepared for the Quendall Terminals Enhanced Alternative and remain valid for the assumed buildout in 2017 based on these determinations:  With the proposed Enhanced Alternative, no significant differences in overall project trip generation are expected with 173 more daily trips, no net change in a.m. peak hour trips, and 15 more p.m. peak hour trips than Preferred Alternative evaluated in the Quendall Terminal EIS documents.  A parking deficit of 16-stalls in comparison to off-street minimum parking Code requirements from 2010 would result with the proposed 1,352 stalls. This however, does not consider current parking demand models or shared parking potential that would occur between various mixed land uses proposed as part of the Enhanced Alternative. With code amendments adopted by the City since the original EIS and in effect in 2016, a 524 stall parking surplus would be calculated.  The intersection ramp junction of NE 44th Street and Southbound I-405 is forecast to remain operating at LOS E with buildout of the Enhanced Alternative and the proposed mitigation at the interchange and associated Lake Washington Boulevard improvement as Quendall Terminals EIS Transportation Consistency Analysis TENW page 5 February 8, 2017 part of site access would operate with acceptable levels of service and vehicle queuing during peak hours. Based on the above, it was determined that no further analysis of the Enhanced Alternative is warranted, and the project mitigation identified in the 2015 Mitigation Document remains valid. Finally, as noted in the FEIS and the draft Development Agreement, an update to the original transportation impact analysis is required within 5 years from the date of this site plan revision. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (206) 361-7333 ext. 101. TENW ATTACHMENT A Enhanced Alternative Detailed Trip Generation Estimates Quendall Terminals EIS Trip Generation Summary Land Use Provided by EA Engineering November 7, 2016 Time Period In Out Total New Daily 2,914 2,915 5,829 AM Peak Hour 107 328 435 PM Peak Hour 346 199 545 Quendall Termials - Enhanced Alternative Trip Generation Summary Net New Trips Generated 11/29/2016 Quendall - Enhanced Alternative Trip Generation Estimate 11-10-16.xls Summary Quendall Terminals Trip Generation Land Use Provided by EA Engineering November 7, 2016 ITE Trip Rate Land Use Area Units 1 LUC 2 In Out Total In Out Total Proposed Uses Retail 33,190 GLA 820 50% 50% 42.70 708 709 1,417 Internal Trips 3 -236 -238 -474 Pass-by 4 34%-160 -161 -321 Subtotal =312 310 622 Apartment 692 Units 220 50% 50% 7.32 2,532 2,533 5,065 Internal Trips 3 -141 -115 -256 Subtotal =2,391 2,418 4,809 Restaurant 9,000 GFA 932 50%50% 127.15 572 572 1,144 Internal Trips 3 -211 -235 -446 Pass-by 4 43%-150 -150 -300 Subtotal =211 187 398 Total Proposed Gross Daily Trips = 3,812 3,814 7,626 Less Total Internal Trips = -588 -588 -1,176 Less Total Pass-by Trips = -310 -311 -621 Total Proposed Net New Daily Trips Generated = 2,914 2,915 5,829 Notes: 1 GLA is Gross Leasable Area. GFA is Gross Floor Area. 2 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012 Land Use Codes. 3 Internal capture based on data presented in ITE Trip Generation Handbook , 2nd Edition, 2004. 4 Average pass-by rate per ITE Trip Generation Handbook , 2nd edition, 2004. Quendall Terminals - Enhanced Alternative Daily Trip Generation Trips GeneratedDirectional Split 11/29/2016 Quendall - Enhanced Alternative Trip Generation Estimate 11-10-16.xls Daily TGEN Quendall Terminals Trip Generation Land Use Provided by EA Engineering November 7, 2016 AM Peak Hour Trip Generation ITE Trip Rate Land Use Area Units 1 LUC 2 In Out Total In Out Total Proposed Uses Retail 33,190 GLA 820 62% 38% 0.98 20 13 33 Internal Trips 3 -6 -5 -11 Pass-by 4 34%-4 -3 -7 Subtotal =10 5 15 Apartment 692 Units 220 20% 80% 0.56 78 310 388 Internal Trips 3 -7 -7 -14 Subtotal =71 303 374 Restaurant 9,000 GFA 932 55% 45% 10.81 53 44 97 Internal Trips 3 -8 -9 -17 Pass-by 4 43%-19 -15 -34 Subtotal =26 20 46 Total Proposed Gross AM Peak Hour Trips = 151 367 518 Less Total Internal Trips = -21 -21 -42 Less Total Pass-by Trips = -23 -18 -41 Total Proposed Net New AM Peak Hour Trips Generated = 107 328 435 Notes: 1 GLA is Gross Leasable Area. GFA is Gross Floor Area. 2 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012 Land Use Codes. 3 Internal capture based on data presented in ITE Trip Generation Handbook , 2nd Edition, 2004. 4 Average pass-by rate per ITE Trip Generation Handbook , 2nd edition, 2004. Quendall Terminals - Enhanced Alternative AM Peak Trip Generation Trips GeneratedDirectional Split 11/29/2016 Quendall - Enhanced Alternative Trip Generation Estimate 11-10-16.xls AM TGEN Quendall Terminals Trip Generation Land Use Provided by EA Engineering November 7, 2016 PM Peak Hour Trip Generation ITE Trip Rate Land Use Area Units 1 LUC 2 In Out Total In Out Total Proposed Uses Retail 33,190 GLA 820 48% 52% 3.71 59 64 123 Internal Trips 3 -12 -19 -31 Pass-by 4 34%-16 -15 -31 Subtotal =31 30 61 Apartment 692 Units 220 65% 35% 0.68 306 165 471 Internal Trips 3 -12 -10 -22 Subtotal =294 155 449 Restaurant 9,000 GFA 932 60% 40% 9.85 53 36 89 Internal Trips 3 -16 -11 -27 Pass-by 4 43%-16 -11 -27 Subtotal =21 14 35 Total Proposed Gross PM Peak Hour Trips = 418 265 683 Less Total Internal Trips = -40 -40 -80 Less Total Pass-by Trips = -32 -26 -58 Total Proposed Net New PM Peak Hour Trips Generated = 346 199 545 Notes: 1 GLA is Gross Leasable Area. GFA is Gross Floor Area. 2 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012 Land Use Codes. 3 Internal capture based on data presented in ITE Trip Generation Handbook , 2nd Edition, 2004. 4 Average pass-by rate per ITE Trip Generation Handbook , 2nd edition, 2004. Quendall Terminals - Enhanced Alternative PM Peak Trip Generation Trips GeneratedDirectional Split 11/29/2016 Quendall - Enhanced Alternative Trip Generation Estimate 11-10-16.xls PM TGEN TENW Enhanced Alternative Project Trip Generation – Comparison with DEIS Alternative 1 Land Use ITE Land Use Code 1 Size 2 A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Daily Trip Generation Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Apartments 220 692 DU 70 282 352 278 149 424 4,605 10% Factor on Residential Uses 8 28 36 28 16 47 460 Retail 820 30,190 sf GLA 20 13 33 59 63 123 1,417 Restaurant 932 9,000 sf GFA 53 44 97 53 36 89 1,144 2016 Enhanced Alternative Gross Trips 151 367 518 418 265 683 7,626 Less Internal Trips 3 -21 -21 -42 -40 -40 -80 -1,176 Less Pass-By Trips 3 -23 -18 -41 -16 -26 -58 -621 2016 Enhanced Alternative Net Trips 107 328 435 346 199 545 5,829 2012 DEIS Alternative 1 Net Trip Generation 445 421 866 442 509 951 8,982 Difference in Enhanced Alternative Compared to DEIS Alternative 1 -338 -93 -431 -96 -310 -406 -3153 1. Trip rates based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012. 2. DU is Dwelling Unit, GFA is Gross Floor Area, and GLA is Gross Leasable Area. 3. Internal and pass-by determined based upon documented average rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004. TENW ATTACHMENT B King County Right Size Parking Model Results TENW ATTACHMENT C LOS and Queuing Analysis with Buildout of Enhanced Alternative NE 44th Street/ Southbound I-405 Ramps HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-ramp 2/8/2017 Quendall Terminals - EIS Enhanced Alt 5:00 pm 10/25/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak with mitigationSynchro 6 Report Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1881 1599 1770 1863 1762 1568 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1881 1599 87 1863 1762 1568 Volume (vph)0 1007 26 515 251 000014010370 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)0 1095 28 560 273 000015211402 RTOR Reduction (vph)00700000000358 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1095 21 560 273 0000016344 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Perm pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s)81.7 81.7 125.7 125.7 16.3 16.3 Effective Green, g (s)81.7 81.7 125.7 125.7 16.3 16.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 0.54 0.84 0.84 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1025 871 522 1561 191 170 v/s Ratio Prot 0.58 c0.29 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.61 0.09 0.03 v/c Ratio 1.07 0.02 1.07 0.17 0.85 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 34.1 15.8 51.7 2.3 65.7 61.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 48.2 0.0 60.3 0.1 35.6 3.6 Delay (s)82.4 15.8 112.0 2.4 101.3 64.9 Level of Service F B F A F E Approach Delay (s)80.7 76.1 0.0 75.4 Approach LOS F E A E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 78.0 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Queues 3: Lk WA Blvd & Ripley Ln 2/8/2017 Quendall Terminals - EIS Enhanced Alt 5:00 pm 10/25/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak with mitigationSynchro 6 Report Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 23 766 293 370 5 355 13 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.64 0.46 0.47 0.01 0.60 0.01 Control Delay 8.2 13.5 12.3 3.5 0.0 15.8 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.9 1.1 0.4 0.0 2.1 0.0 Total Delay 8.2 14.4 13.4 3.9 0.0 17.9 0.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 3 72 49 0 0 54 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 12 102 86 34 0 163 0 Internal Link Dist (ft)156 112 73 322 Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 Base Capacity (vph) 415 1416 752 862 806 596 900 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 256 156 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 354 0 0 173 127 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0000000 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.72 0.59 0.52 0.01 0.76 0.01 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 11730 118th Avenue N.E., Suite 600, Kirkland, WA 98034 | 425.821.3665 | MEMORANDUM Date: January 12, 2017 TG:09041.01 To: Campbell Mathewson – CenturyPacific From: Kevin Jones, P.E., PTOE and Kyle Stahley, P.E. – Transpo Group Subject: Quendall Terminals – Left-Turn Lane Analysis for Street A This memorandum summarizes the study we prepared analyzing the need for a center left-turn lane in Street A at the Quendall Terminals development. The requirement for such study was established as part of the Hearing Examiner Recommendation (April 19, 2016) in Condition 44, XIV. This condition states that “A transportation study shall be completed to analyze the need for a center left-turn lane in Road A.” In order to meet the required condition, we conducted traffic analyses at the three internal intersections on Street A by evaluating the anticipated traffic volumes at each intersection during the weekday AM and PM peak hours as well as intersection operations without a center left-turn lane or left-turn pockets. Based on the analyses conducted and explained in the following sections, a center left-turn lane in Street A is not recommended at Quendall Terminals. Project Description The Enhanced Alternative development scenario for the Quendall Terminals project would construct four multi-story buildings totaling 692 residential units and include 33,190 square feet of retail space and an additional 9,000 square feet of restaurant space on the ground floor. Parking would be provided below each of the buildings along with some surface parking along the outside of the building. Approximately 1,350 parking spaces would be developed for the project. The parking areas would be accessed via three roads on-site, currently known as Street B, Street D, and Street E. Each of these streets would connect to the planned Street A which would serve as the main access road to Lake Washington Boulevard N on the south end of the project and Seahawks Way (Ripley Lane N) at the north end of the project. This analysis focuses on the operations at the intersections of the three streets with Street A (from north to south): 1. Street A / Street E 2. Street A / Street B 3. Street A / N 43rd Street / Street D The Street A / Street D intersection also serves as an access to the Barbee Mill development to the south. A conceptual layout of the project access points and street layouts is shown in Figure 1. Although not shown in the figure, it is anticipated that the Street A / Street D intersection would be aligned as a traditional, four-leg intersection and it was analyzed using this configuration. 2 Figure 1: Quendall Terminals Site Layout Trip Generation Trip generation for the proposed project was based on trip generation developed for the Enhanced Alternative and developed in the Quendall Terminals EIS Memorandum1. Table 1 below summarizes the Enhanced Alternative Project Trip Generation. 1 Quendall Terminals EIS – Consistency Analysis, Transportation Engineering NorthWest January 12, 2017. 3 Table 1. Weekday Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Trips Land Use1 Size In Out Total In Out Total Total Apartments (ITE LU 220) 692 DUs 70 282 352 278 149 424 4,605 +10% Factor (Residential) 8 28 36 28 16 47 460 Retail (ITE LU 820) 30.19 KSF 20 13 33 59 63 123 1,417 Restaurant (ITE LU 932) 9.00 KSF 53 44 97 53 36 89 1,144 Gross Trips 151 367 518 418 265 683 7,626 Less Internal Trips2 -21 -21 -42 -40 -40 -80 -1,176 Less Pass-by Trips2 -23 -18 -41 -32 -26 -58 -621 Net Trips 107 328 435 346 199 545 5,829 Note: LU = land use, DU = dwelling units, KSF = 1,000 square feet 1. Trip rates based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012. 2. Internal and pass-by determined based upon documented average rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004. As shown in Table 1, the weekday AM peak hour is anticipated to generate 435 net new trips while the weekday PM peak hour is anticipated to generate 545 net new trips. Traffic Volumes Project trips were distributed to the internal roads and intersections based on the locations of the parking spaces and garages. There would be approximately 1,350 surface and garage parking spaces on site with access points on Street B, Street D, and Street E. It was assumed drivers of vehicles are likely to take the shortest route to and from the on-site parking areas and consequently, it was assumed that approximately 20 percent of vehicle trips would use Street E, 25 percent would use Street B, and 55 percent would use Street D on the south end of the project. The anticipated external trips to the project site were assigned to each of the internal intersections along Street A, based on the project trip distribution. At the Street A / Street D intersection, these trips were added to existing volumes observed entering and exiting the Barbee Mill development from traffic counts recently conducted during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The Street B and Street E intersections with Street A would be new intersections, constructed with the development, and do not have any anticipated traffic from other uses. The distribution of vehicle trips along each of the streets as well as the weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at each intersection are illustrated in Figure 2. 4 Figure 2: Vehicle Trip Distribution and Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Intersection Operations The need for a left-turn lane in Street A was analyzed by calculating the intersection level of service (LOS) and vehicle queuing at each of the intersections. LOS was calculated using methodology from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010). The channelization at each intersection was assumed to be single-lane approaches. The LOS was calculated assuming that each intersection was all-way stop-controlled. Additionally, a secondary analysis was completed which assumed each intersection was side-street, stop-controlled. The LOS is reported for both the weekday AM and PM peak hours in Table 2. For the side-street, stop- controlled analysis, the 95th-percentile queue length was reported for the stop-controlled approaches, based on HCM 2010 methodology, and shown in Table 2. The HCM 2010 does not include queuing methodology for all-way stop-controlled intersections. 5 Table 2. Weekday Peak Hour Level of Service and Queuing Summary All-Way Stop-Controlled Side-Street Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS1 Delay2 WM3 Stopped Approaches4 LOS Delay WM Queue5 Weekday AM Peak Hour Street A / Street E A 7.3 EB NB A 8.7 NB 1 Street A / Street B A 7.0 NB EB A 8.8 EB 1 Street A / Street D A 8.3 EB NB / SB B 11.8 SB 1 Weekday PM Peak Hour Street A / Street E A 7.4 EB NB A 8.6 NB 1 Street A / Street B A 7.3 NB EB A 8.9 EB 1 Street A / Street D A 9.2 WB NB / SB B 13.4 SB 1 Note: EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound 1. Level of service, based on 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010) methodology. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle for all vehicles at all-way stop-controlled intersections and for vehicles on the worst stop-controlled approach at side-street stop-controlled intersections. 3. Worst movement reported for unsignalized intersections indicating approach or movement with greatest average vehicle delay. 4. Approaches which are controlled by stop signs. 5. 95th-percentile queue rounded up to the nearest vehicle for the worst movement of the intersection based on HCM 2010 methodology. As shown in Table 2, each of the intersections on Street A is anticipated to operate with relatively minor delays (approximately 13 seconds or less) during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, regardless whether the intersections are all-way or side-street stop controlled. Additionally, the 95th-percentile queues anticipated during the weekday AM and PM peak hours would be no more than one vehicle at each of the intersections if they are side-street stop controlled. Based on the traffic operations and anticipated queue lengths, single-lane approaches at each of the Street A intersections would provide acceptable traffic operations and a center left-turn lane would not be needed. Additional Considerations In addition to the intersection operations discussed above, the construction of Street A as a two- lane street would provide other traffic calming and non-motorized benefits. If left-turn pockets for vehicles on Street A were provided, it is possible that vehicles on either Lake Washington Blvd N or on Seahawks Way could cut-through the development by using Street A to bypass traffic queues on N 44th Street. Although this is still possible with a two-lane section on Street A, it would be less likely due to the presence of turning vehicles and slower speeds required on Street A. The Eastside Rail Corridor – Regional Trail is currently being planned with the Draft Master Plan & EIS released in February 2016. The trail would serve people walking and biking and is planned on the old railroad alignment located immediately east of Street A. Residents of the planned Quendall Terminals development and visitors to the retail and restaurant land uses as well as the public shoreline of the planned development are likely to use the trail for recreation and transportation. Safe crossings from the trail to the Quendall Terminals development would be designed to facilitate connectivity between the two. By constructing Street A as a two-lane road, crossing distances of the street would be shortened, increasing the comfort level and safety of people crossing the streets. Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss our findings. APPENDIX B Comparison of Impacts Under the EIS Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative Appendix B 1 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative Comparison of Impacts under the EIS Alternatives & the Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative EARTH Impacts • A minimal amount of clearing and grading (approximately 53,000 – 133,000 CY of fill), primarily in the upland portion of the Main Property would be required for redevelopment. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Grading activities could impact the integrity of the soil cap installed during site cleanup/remediation. Implementation of institutional controls defined in the final remediation plans would ensure that the cap would remain intact during excavation. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Site disturbance during construction activities could result in increased potential for erosion and sedimentation of on-site wetlands and Lake Washington. Significant impacts are not expected with implementation of the temporary erosion and • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. Appendix B 2 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative sedimentation control plan (TESCP) required by the City. • A deep building foundation system (i.e., piles) and/or ground improvements would likely be required for structural support. Installation of piles, as well as excavation for utilities, could impact the integrity of the soil cap installed during site remediation and could transmit contamination to site areas that are not contaminated. Significant impacts are not expected with implementation of institutional controls defined in the final remediation plans. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Differential settlement could occur between structures that would be pile–supported and underground utilities serving the structures, causing damage to utility lines. Significant impacts are not expected with implementation of institutional controls defined in the final remediation plans. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • With redevelopment, the amount of impervious surface • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. Appendix B 3 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative area onsite and associated stormwater runoff rates would increase and could result in erosion hazards at stormwater outfalls at the lake. Significant impacts are not expected with installation of a permanent stormwater control system, as required by the City, including energy dissipation measures at the outfalls. • Potential impacts to site structures could occur during seismic events due to ground motion, liquefaction and lateral spreading hazards. All proposed structures would be built to the most current IBC code to address potential effects of seismic events and buildings would likely be supported on piles to reduce these hazards. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Groundwater could be encountered during construction activities. Significant impacts would not be expected with dewatering and other construction techniques. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. Appendix B 4 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative • With redevelopment, impervious surfaces would increase and potential for infiltration of rainfall to underlying aquifers would decrease. However, the majority of the recharge to the aquifers originates from off-site sources to the east, and significant impacts are not expected. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • There would be a risk of ground motion impacts and landslides beneath Lake Washington adjacent to the site during a seismic event; however, such impacts would occur with or without the proposed redevelopment. There are no significant unavoidable earth- related impacts that cannot be mitigated with the mitigation measures identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. Appendix B 5 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative CRITICAL AREAS Impacts • The entire Main Property would be capped with soil during site cleanup/remediation, resulting in the fill of all existing wetlands and elimination of riparian habitat on this property. Wetlands would be re- established and/or expanded and riparian habitat would be recreated/enhanced in a 50-ft. minimum shoreline setback area. • Same as Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternative 1; however, a 100-ft. minimum shoreline setback would be maintained. • Same as Alternative 1; however, a 100-ft. minimum shoreline setback would be maintained. • Proposed construction and redevelopment could cause indirect impacts to on-site wetlands, riparian habitat and lake habitat related to hydrologic conditions (in the case of the wetlands) and potential for erosion and sediment deposition (particularly during construction). Significant impacts, including to salmonid fish in the lake, are not expected with implementation of a TESCP during construction and installation of a permanent • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. Appendix B 6 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative stormwater control system, as required by the City. • With proposed redevelopment, no direct impacts would occur to the retained/expanded wetlands on the Isolated Property or the re- established/expanded wetlands on the Main Property. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • With proposed redevelopment, a portion of the buffer on Wetland D would be reduced to 25 feet; other portions of the buffer would be expanded to provide compensatory areas, as allowed by the buffer averaging provisions of the City of Renton Municipal Code. • Same as Alternative 1. • No reduction of the Wetland D buffer would occur with the 100-ft. minimum shoreline setback area that would be maintained. • No reduction of the Wetland D buffer would occur with the 100-ft. minimum shoreline setback area that would be maintained. • Proposed buildings would be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the shoreline, as required by the 1983 City of Renton Shoreline Master Program. • Same as Alternative 1. • Proposed buildings would be setback a minimum of 100 feet from the shoreline. • Proposed buildings would be setback a minimum of 100 feet from the shoreline. • Three stormwater outfalls would be constructed within the shoreline areas. These outfalls would be located to avoid direct impacts to wetlands and would • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. Appendix B 7 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative be designed to prevent erosions/siltation during construction and operation. Therefore, no significant impacts to wetlands and the lake are expected. • With proposed redevelopment, the shoreline setback area would largely remain intact. A publically accessible trail with interpretive viewpoints would be located within the 50-ft. minimum shoreline setback, if approved as part of EPA’s anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD settlement. The upland portion of the Main Property would be covered in buildings, paved areas and landscaping, providing habitat for certain wildlife species adapted to urban environments. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. However, the publically accessible pedestrian facilities would be location within the 100-ft. minimum shoreline setback area, if approved as part of EPA’s anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD settlement. • Same as Alternative 1. However, a publically accessible pedestrian facilities would be located within the 100-ft. minimum shoreline setback area, if approved as part of EPA’s anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD settlement. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • There are no significant unavoidable impacts to critical areas that cannot be mitigated with the mitigation measures • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. Appendix B 8 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Impacts • The entire Main Property would be capped with soil during site cleanup/remediation, limiting the potential for exposure to underlying contaminants. To the greatest extent possible, this cap would remain intact with proposed redevelopment. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • The installation of deep foundations (i.e., piles) and utilities could generate contaminated soil and/or groundwater to which workers and City staff inspectors could be exposed. City staff that maintain utilities could also be exposed to contaminated soils/groundwater. With proper protection equipment, training and handling and disposal of contaminants, no significant impacts are anticipated. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Volatile contaminants in the subsurface could generate vapors that could intrude into • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. Appendix B 9 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative utility trenches and above-grade structures. With separation of living/working areas from contaminants by the soil cap and under-building parking, as well as implementation of institutional controls specified during site remediation, no significant impacts are anticipated. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • There are no significant unavoidable impacts to environmental health that cannot be mitigated with the mitigation measures identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. ENERGY—GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Impacts • Proposed redevelopment would result in an increase in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions relative to existing conditions due to the increase in building density and site population. Development • Similar to Alternative 1; however, GHG emissions would be less due to less building density and site population. Development would result in an estimated 860,434.8 MTCO2e in lifespan GHG emissions. • Similar to Alternative 1; however, GHG emissions would be less due to less building density and site population. Development would result in an estimated 841,938.8 MTCO2e in lifespan GHG emissions. • Similar to Alternative 1; however, GHG emissions would be less due to less building density and site population. Development would result in an estimated 851,720.0 MTCO2e in lifespan Appendix B 10 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative would result in an estimated 1,297,536.8 MTCO 2 e in lifespan GHG emissions. GHG emissions (see Appendix C for calculations of these emissions). • New development would use energy in the form of electricity for heating, cooling, lighting and other energy demands, and natural gas for heating and cooking. • Similar to Alternative 1; however, energy usage would be lower due to less overall development on the site. • Similar to Alternative 1; however, energy usage would be lower due to less overall development on the site. • Similar to Alternative 1; however, energy usage would be lower due to less overall development on the site. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • There are no significant unavoidable energy or GHG emissions impacts that cannot be mitigated with the mitigation measures identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. LAND AND SHORELINE USE Impacts • Under the proposal, the site would be subdivided into seven lots, four of which would contain mixed-use development, and three of which would contain the shoreline area. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. Appendix B 11 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative • Redevelopment would occur in nine buildings on the Main Property, and would include: − 800 residential units − Approx. 245,000 sq. ft. of offices uses − Approx. 21,600 sq. ft. of retail uses − Approx. 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant uses No development would occur on the Isolated Property. • Redevelopment would occur in nine buildings on the Main Property, and would include: − 708 residential units − No offices uses − Approx. 21,600 sq. ft. of retail uses − Approx. 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant uses No development would occur on the Isolated Property. • Redevelopment would occur in ten buildings on the Main Property, and would include: − 692 residential units − No offices uses − Approx. 21,600 sq. ft. of retail uses − Approx. 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant uses No development would occur on the Isolated Property. • Redevelopment would occur in ten buildings on the Main Property, and would include: − 692 residential units − No offices uses − Approx. 33,190 sq. ft. of retail uses − Approx. 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant uses No development would occur on the Isolated Property. • Site preparation and construction of buildings and infrastructure would result in temporary construction-related impacts to adjacent land uses over the buildout period (i.e., air emission, noise and increased traffic). Due to the temporary nature of construction and required compliance with City of Renton construction code regulations, no significant impacts are expected. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Redevelopment would convert the site from its current vacant, partially vegetated state to a mixed-use development, and • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. Appendix B 12 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative would restore a Superfund site to a productive use. • Redevelopment would result in increased activity levels onsite (i.e., noise, traffic, etc.). In general, these activity levels would be greater than the adjacent residential uses to the south (Barbee Mill), but similar to the commercial uses to the north (Seahawks Training Facility) and the existing and planned commercial and hotel uses to the east (proposed Hawk’s Landing hotel and commercial uses east of I-405). Activity levels would be consistent with the existing urban character of the area and no significant impacts are expected. • Similar to Alternative 1; however, activity levels onsite and their associated potential to impact adjacent land uses would be less due to less overall development onsite. • Similar to Alternative 1; however, activity levels onsite and their associated potential to impact adjacent land uses would be less due to less overall development onsite. • Similar to Alternative 1; however, activity levels onsite and their associated potential to impact adjacent land uses would be less due to less overall development onsite. • Proposed buildings onsite would be up to 80 feet high and residential building area from approximately 94,600 to 209,000 sq. ft. in size. The proposed height and bulk would be consistent with the type and size of development contemplated in the COR land • Proposed buildings onsite would be up to 67 feet high and residential building area from approximately 77,000 to 112,800 sq. ft. in size. The proposed height and bulk would be consistent with the type and size of development contemplated in the COR land • Proposed buildings onsite would be up to 64 feet high and residential building area from approximately 46,200 to 88,000 sq. ft. in size. The proposed height and bulk would be consistent with the type and size of development contemplated in the COR land • Proposed buildings onsite would be up to 64 feet in high and from residential building area from approximately 62,400 to 101,973 sq. ft. in size. The proposed height and bulk would be consistent with the type and size of development contemplated in Appendix B 13 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative use/zoning classification and the Urban shoreline environment. use/zoning classification and the Urban shoreline environment. use/zoning classification and the Urban shoreline environment. the COR land use/zoning classification and the Urban shoreline environment. • Proposed buildings would be greater in height and bulk than the adjacent residential buildings to the south; however, they would generally be similar to the surrounding existing commercial and planned hotel buildings to the north and east. Existing off-site features (i.e., roadways and the PSE easement) and proposed on-site features (i.e., setbacks, driveways, parking areas and landscaping) would provide buffers between proposed buildings and adjacent uses. Architectural features would be included that are intended to enhance the compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding uses. Overall, no significant land use compatibility impacts are expected. • Similar to Alternative 1; however building height and bulk would be less. • Similar to Alternative 1; however building height and bulk would be less. • Similar to Alternative 1; however, building height and bulk would be less. Three buildings (buildings NW 2, SE 2 and NE 2) would be one-story taller than under the Preferred Alternative. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • There are no significant unavoidable adverse land use • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. Appendix B 14 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative impacts that cannot be mitigated with the mitigation measures identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. RELATIONSHIP TO PLANS, POLICIES AND REGULATIONS • The proposed project would generally be consistent with applicable plans, policies and regulations. However, it is unclear at this time whether proposed redevelopment would be consistent with all of the COR land use/zoning classification goals and requirements, particularly regarding the design of the project. Possible mitigation measures could be implemented to enhance the design of the project and achieve consistency with these goals and requirements. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. The City and the Applicant are in the process of preparing a Development Agreement that would enhance the project design by providing additional open space, street activation (fountains, artwork, etc.) and opportunity for a possible future public dock or pier (this dock is not proposed at this time and would be subject to future SEPA environmental review and consent from EPA). AESTHETICS/VIEWS Impacts • Proposed redevelopment would change the aesthetic character of the site from a partially • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. Appendix B 15 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative vegetated area to a new mixed- use development. • Proposed buildings would be greater in height and bulk than the adjacent Barbee Mill development to the south and would be generally similar in height and bulk to the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility to the north. • Similar to Alternative 1; however, proposed development height and bulk would be less. • Similar to Alternative 1; however, proposed development height and bulk would be less. • Similar to Alternative 1; however, proposed development height and bulk would be less. Three buildings (NW 2, SE 2 and NE 2) would be one-story taller than under the Preferred Alternative. • Views toward the site would change substantially to reflect a maximum seven-story mixed- use development. Architectural features and landscaping would be provided to enhance the project’s visual appeal. Possible mitigation measure could be implemented to further enhance the aesthetic character of the development and maintain views of the lake. • Similar to Alternative 1; however proposed buildings would be a maximum of six stories. • Similar to Alternative 1; however, proposed buildings would be a maximum of six stories, and in the southwestern portion of the site building SW 4 would be four-stories high. • Similar to Alternative 1; however, proposed buildings would be a maximum of six stories, and in the southwestern portion of the site building SW 4 would be four-stories high. • View corridors are proposed along the main east/west public roadway (Street ‘B’) and along the private driveways at the north and south ends of the site to provide views across the site towards Lake Washington. • Similar to Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternatives 1; however, view corridors along Street ‘B’, private driveways and along the southern boundary of the site would be widened. • Similar to Alternatives 1; however, view corridors along Street ‘B’, private driveways and along the southern boundary of the site would be widened. Appendix B 16 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative Views toward the lake would be blocked or partially blocked from certain public view points. Possible mitigation measures could be implemented to enhance views across the site. • Proposed redevelopment would add new sources of light and glare, and would produce shadows at the site. New light sources would be similar to existing sources at the Barbee Mill development and Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility; however, the general lighting levels on the site would be higher. Noise levels would be typical of an urban development. Shadows from the project would not impact off-site uses, but would extend onto certain on-site outdoor areas. • Similar to Alternative 1, except that lighting and noise levels and shadows would be lower due to less overall development. • Similar to Alternative 1, except that lighting and noise levels and shadows would be lower due to less overall development. • Similar to Alternative 1, except that lighting and noise levels and shadows would be lower due to less overall development. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • There are no significant unavoidable adverse land use impacts that cannot be mitigated with the mitigation measures identified in the 2015 • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. Appendix B 17 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. PARKS AND RECREATION Impacts • Approximately 11.7 acres of open space and related areas would be provided onsite, including: paved plazas, natural areas, landscaped areas, unpaved trails and sidewalks. These areas may or may not meet the City’s standards, regulations and procedures for open space. Approximately 3.4 acres of the on-site open space and related areas would be visually and physically accessible to the general public (i.e., the natural shoreline area and the shoreline trail, respectively). • Similar to Alternative 1, except that slightly more open space and related areas would be provided onsite (11.8 acres). • Similar to Alternative 1, except that slightly less open space and related areas would be provided onsite (10.6 acres). • Similar to Alternative 1, except that more open space and related areas would be provided onsite (12.9 acres) and would include a new 1.3- acre park in the southwestern portion of the site. • Increases in the on-site residential population, as well as on-site employees would increase demands on neighborhood and regional parks, open space, trails and recreation facilities, including parks that are already at or exceeding capacity on warm days. The proposal would • Similar to Alternative 1, except that there would be slightly fewer residents on the site and fewer employees; demands on neighborhood and regional parks, opens space, trails and recreation facilities would be reduced accordingly. • Similar to Alternative 1, except that there would be fewer residents on the site and fewer employees; demands on neighborhood and regional parks, opens space, trails and recreation facilities would be reduced accordingly. Similar to Alternative 1, except that there would be fewer residents on the site and fewer employees; demands on neighborhood and regional parks, opens space, trails and recreation facilities would be reduced accordingly. Appendix B 18 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative contribute to these capacity issues. Additional parks and recreational facilities could be needed in the City, based on the increased on-site population. Certain on-site facilities (i.e., the shoreline trail) would provide opportunities for passive recreation. Areas for active recreation could be provided onsite as well. Parks impact fees would be paid to help offset the impacts of the project on City parks and recreational facilities. A new 1.3-acre park would be included in the southwestern portion of the site that would provide additional parks/recreation area. A publically-accessible 12-ft. wide enhanced fire and utility access lane would be provided outside the 100-ft. minimum shoreline setback. This access lane would connect to the properties to the north and south of the site via 6-ft. wide soft-surface trails. In addition, a soft surface trail would be provided within the 100-ft. shoreline setback area, if approved as part of EPA’s anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD settlement. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • There are no significant unavoidable adverse parks and recreation impacts that cannot be mitigated with the mitigation measures identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. Appendix B 19 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative TRANSPORTATION Impacts • The proposed redevelopment would generate approximately 9,000 daily vehicular trips at full buildout, including approximately 865 AM peak hour trips and 950 PM peak hour trips. • Proposed redevelopment would generate approximately 5,800 daily vehicular trips at full buildout, including approximately 445 AM peak hour trips and 540 PM peak hour trips. • Proposed redevelopment would generate approximately 5,656 daily vehicular trips at full buildout, including approximately 435 AM peak hour trips and 530 PM peak hour trips. • Proposed redevelopment would generate approximately 5,829 daily vehicular trips at full buildout, including approximately 435 AM peak hour trips and 545 PM peak hour trips. • With proposed redevelopment, and without WSDOT I-405 improvements or project mitigation, four intersections would operate at LOS E/F: - Lake Washington Blvd. (I-405 NB Ramps)/NE 44th St.; - I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th St.; - Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd.; and - Lake Washington Blvd. (Garden Ave.) at Park View Ave. N. • Similar to Alternative 1. • With proposed redevelopment, and without WSDOT I-405 improvements or project mitigation, three intersections would operate at LOS E/F: - Lake Washington Blvd. (I- 405 NB Ramps)/NE 44th St.; - I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th St.; and - Ripley Lane/NE 44th St. • Similar to the Preferred Alternative. • Without I-405 Improvements or project mitigation, excessive southbound queues (between 700-800 ft.) would be anticipated at the Lake Washington Blvd./Ripley Lane N intersection. • Similar to Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternative 1; however, without I-405 Improvements or project mitigation southbound queues (between 800-900 ft.) would be anticipated at the Lake • Similar to the Preferred Alternative. Appendix B 20 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative Washington Blvd./Ripley Lane N intersection. • Without I-405 Improvements or project mitigation, the site access at Ripley Lane N is anticipated to operate at LOS F. • Similar to Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternative 1. • Given the site location, it is anticipated that the proposed redevelopment would be occupied by residents and employees who primarily rely on personal automobiles and no significant impacts to public transportation would be anticipated. • Similar to Alternative 1 • Similar to Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternative 1. • Increases in population onsite would result in associated increased need for non- motorized facilities. Curbs, gutters and sidewalks would be provided onsite, as well as along Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N. A publically accessible trail is also proposed within the 50-ft. minimum shoreline setback, if approved as part of EPA’s anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD settlement. • Similar to Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternative 1. However, a publically accessible trail would be located within the 100-ft. minimum shoreline setback, if approved as part of EPA’s anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD settlement. • Similar to Alternative 1. However, a publically accessible enhanced fire and utility access lane would be located outside the 100-ft. minimum shoreline setback and would connect to the properties to the north and south via trails. In addition, a soft surface trail would be provided within the 100-ft. minimum shoreline setback area, if approved as part of EPA’s anticipated ROD for the Appendix B 21 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative remediation project or any NRD settlement. • 2,153 parking spaces would be provided and would meet applicable City of Renton parking standards. • 1,362 parking spaces would be provided and would meet applicable City of Renton parking standards. • 1,337 parking spaces would be provided and would meet applicable City of Renton parking standards. • 1,352 parking spaces would be provided and provide adequate parking supply. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • With or without the I-405 Improvements, and with the identified project mitigation measures, no significant transportation-related impacts are expected. Therefore, there are no significant unavoidable adverse transportation impacts that cannot be mitigated with the mitigation measures identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. • Same as Alternative 1. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impacts • Cultural resource impacts were not analyzed in the 2010 DEIS. However, impacts are expected to be similar to under the Preferred Alternative. • Cultural resource impacts were not analyzed in the 2010 DEIS. However, impacts are expected to be similar to under the Preferred Alternative. • Certain construction activities onsite (i.e., clearing and grading of the upland area, construction of deep building foundations, and excavation of utilities) could require excavation into • Same as the Preferred Alternative. Appendix B 22 Comparison of Probable Impacts under the Redevelopment Alternatives & Enhanced Alternative 2010 DEIS Alternative 1 2010 DEIS Alternative 2 2015 FEIS Preferred Alternative 2016 Enhanced Alternative the soil cap (should it be installed) and could result in an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources. While it is unlikely that cultural resources would be encountered as part of construction activities on the site, a monitoring plan and inadvertent discovery plan would be implemented in the event that any cultural resources are encountered. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • Cultural resource impacts were not analyzed in the 2010 DEIS. However, similar to under the Preferred Alternative, no significant unavoidable adverse cultural resource impacts are expected that cannot be mitigated with the mitigation measures identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. • Same as Alternative 1. • There are no significant unavoidable adverse cultural resource impacts that cannot be mitigated with the mitigation measures identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document. • Same as the Preferred Alternative. APPENDIX C GHG EMISSIONS WORKSHEET FOR ENHANCED ALTERNATIVE Quendall Terminals - Enhanced Alternative Section I: Buildings Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial)# Units Square Feet (in thousands of square feet)Embodied Energy Transportation Lifespan Emissions (MTCO2e) Single-Family Home..............................0 98 672 792 0 Multi-Family Unit in Large Building .......692 33 357 766 799741 Multi-Family Unit in Small Building .......0 54 681 766 0 Mobile Home.........................................0 41 475 709 0 Education ..............................................0.0 39 646 361 0 Food Sales ...........................................0.0 39 1,541 282 0 Food Service ........................................9.0 39 1,994 561 23344 Health Care Inpatient ............................0.0 39 1,938 582 0 Health Care Outpatient .........................0.0 39 737 571 0 Lodging .................................................0.0 39 777 117 0 Retail (Other Than Mall)........................33.2 39 577 247 28635 Office ....................................................0.0 39 723 588 0 Public Assembly ...................................0.0 39 733 150 0 Public Order and Safety .......................0.0 39 899 374 0 Religious Worship ................................0.0 39 339 129 0 Service ..................................................0.0 39 599 266 0 Warehouse and Storage ......................0.0 39 352 181 0 Other ....................................................0.0 39 1,278 257 0 Vacant ..................................................0.0 39 162 47 0 Section II: Pavement........................... Pavement..............................................0.00 0 Total Project Emissions:851720 Emissions Per Unit or Per Thousand Square Feet (MTCO2e) Version 1.7 12/26/07