Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Quendall Terminals Final EIS - 8.31.15
Final ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Quendall Terminals Renton, Washington August 2015 prepared by City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the QUENDALL TERMINALS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT City of Renton The EIS for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project has been prepared in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) of 1971 (Chapter 43.21C, Revised Code of Washington) and the SEPA Rules, effective April 4, 1984, as amended (Chapter 197-11, Washington Administrative Code). Preparation of this EIS is the responsibility of the City of Renton. The City of Renton has determined that this document has been prepared in a responsible manner using appropriate methods and they have directed the areas of research and analysis that were undertaken in preparation of this EIS. This document is not an authorization for an action, nor does it constitute a decision or a recommendation for an action; in its final form, it will accompany the Proposed Actions and will be considered in making the final decisions on the proposal. Date of Draft EIS Issuance ................................................... December 10, 2010 Date of EIS Addendum Issuance ............................................ October 19, 2012 Date of Final EIS Issuance ........................................................ August 31, 2015 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 i Fact Sheet FACT SHEET PROJECT TITLE Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project PROPONENT/APPLICANT Century Pacific, LLLP LOCATION The approximately 21.5-acre Quendall Terminals site is located in the northern portion of the City of Renton, within the Southwest ¼ of Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, King County. The site includes an approximately 20.3-acre Main Property along Lake Washington, and an approximately 1.2-acre Isolated Property to the northeast. The Main Property is generally bordered by a Puget Sound Energy easement and the Seattle Seahawks Training Facility to the north; the railroad right-of-way, Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N to the east; the Barbee Mill residential development to the south; and, Lake Washington to the west. The Isolated Property is generally bounded by Ripley Lane N to the west, and the southbound I-405 off-ramp to the east and south. PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Actions for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project include: Master Site Plan approval from the City; Binding Site Plan approval from the City; Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval from the City; Other local, state, and federal permit approvals for construction and redevelopment; and, Construction and operation of the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/ALTERNATIVES The Quendall Terminals site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and will undergo cleanup/remediation under the oversight 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 this EIS, which solely addresses impacts that may occur due to post-cleanup redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site, assume an existing/baseline condition subsequent to cleanup/remediation. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 ii Fact Sheet To date, two environmental review documents under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) have been issued for public review and comment by the City of Renton on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project: a Draft EIS (DEIS) issued in December 2010 and an EIS Addendum issued in October 2012. These documents are available for review at the King County library system, Renton public libraries, Renton City Hall, and via download on the City of Renton Website – www.rentonwa.gov. Draft EIS – December 2010 The 2010 DEIS addressed the probable significant adverse impacts that could occur as a result of approval by the City of a Master Plan, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and other local, state and federal permits; and, potential future redevelopment activities through build-out in 2015 assumed in that document. Two redevelopment alternatives and the No-Action Alternative were addressed in the DEIS. EIS Addendum – October 2012 Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS, a Preferred Alternative was voluntarily developed by the applicant and the applicant’s technical team based on additional agency/community input (particularly from EPA), and continued input and coordination with the City of Renton. The Preferred Alternative was the subject of the analysis in the EIS Addendum. The Preferred Alternative is intended to be a compact, urban mixed-use development. The project is planned to ensure that future redevelopment is compatible with the environmental remediation effort at the site that is currently underway. Following are several of the key full build-out (for environmental review purposes in the Addendum assumed to be 2015) redevelopment assumptions for the Preferred Alternative: Retail/Restaurant Uses (21,600 sq. ft. retail/9,000 sq. ft. restaurant) Office Uses (none) Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 iii Fact Sheet Residential Units (692 units) Maximum Building Heights (64 ft.) Parking (1,337 parking spaces) Shoreline Setback (100-ft. min. setback) Setbacks from Adjacent Properties (north: 38–95 ft.; south: 40–200 ft.) View Corridors (enlarged Street “B” corridor) Building Height Modulation (4-story Building SW4 along southwest property line; 5- to 6- story buildings elsewhere) Natural Public Open Space Areas – 3.7 acres, and Other Related Areas – 6.9 acres (10.6 acres) Building Design (brick, stucco, masonry, and precast concrete; minimal metal siding) Emergency Access Road (in the western portion of the site) The Draft EIS, EIS Addendum and this Final EIS together constitute the EIS for the proposal. LEAD AGENCY (SEPA) City of Renton Environmental Review Committee SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Dept. of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 EIS CONTACT PERSON Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Dept. of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Phone: (425) 430-7314 FINAL ACTION Approvals/permits by the City of Renton to authorize development, construction, and operation of the Quendall Terminals mixed-use development, as well as infrastructure improvements to serve the development. PERMITS AND APPROVALS Preliminary investigation indicates that the following permits and/or approvals could be required or requested for the Proposed Actions. Additional permits/approvals may be identified during the review process associated with specific development projects. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 iv Fact Sheet Federal CERCLA Remediation (for site cleanup/remediation prior to redevelopment) State of Washington Dept. of Ecology, Construction Stormwater General Permit Dept. of Ecology, NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Hydraulic Project Approval City of Renton Master Site Plan Approval Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Binding Site Plan Site Plan Review Construction Permits Building Permits Development Permits Utility Approvals Property Permits & Licenses FINAL EIS (FEIS) AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS The Quendall Terminals Final Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared under the direction of the City of Renton and analyses were provided by the following consulting firms: FEIS Project Manager, Primary Author EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc., PBC 2200 6th Avenue, Suite 707 Seattle, WA 98121 Earth AESI 911 5th Avenue Kirkland, WA 98033 Critical Areas Raedeke Associates 2111 N Northgate Way, Suite 219 Seattle, WA 98133 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 v Fact Sheet Visual Analysis (Simulations) The Portico Group 1500 4th Avenue - 3rd Floor Seattle, Washington 98101 Transportation/Traffic Transportation, Engineering Northwest, LLC 816 6th Street S Kirkland, WA 98033 Historic Resources Cultural Resource Consultants 710 Erickson Avenue NE, Suite 100 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 LOCATION OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION Background material and supporting documents are located at the offices of: EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc., PBC 2200 6th Avenue, Suite 707 Seattle, WA 98121 City of Renton Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development, Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 DATE OF FEIS ISSUANCE August 31, 2015 AVAILABILITY OF THE DEIS, EIS ADDENDUM AND FEIS Copies of this FEIS have been distributed to agencies, organizations, and individuals noted on the Distribution List contained in Appendix A to this document. The FEIS is also available for review on the City of Renton website at http://www.rentonwa.gov/ and at the following King County Library System Renton public libraries: Renton Main Library 100 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98057 Renton Highlands Library 2902 NE 12th Street Renton, WA 98056 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 vi Fact Sheet A limited number of printed copies of this FEIS may be purchased at the City of Renton’s Finance Department (1st Floor of City Hall) for $35 per hard copy or $10.00 per CD, plus tax and postage (if mailed). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 vii Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FACT SHEET................................................................................................................... i Chapter 1 – SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 1-1 Chapter 2 – KEY TOPIC AREAS ............................................................................... 2-1 Chapter 3 – COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES ............................................. 3-1 Chapter 4 – REFERENCES ....................................................................................... 4-1 APPENDICES A. Final EIS Distribution List B. Transportation Analysis Worksheets C. Supplemental Transportation Review for 2017 Build-out Year LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1-1 Preferred Alternative Site Plan .................................................................... 1-3 2-1 Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard Intersection Movements – 2015 (and 2017) Vehicle Queues……………………………………………………. 2-7 2-2 I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange and Lake Washington Boulevard Conceptual Improvements (without I-405 Improvements) ........................... 2-9 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2-1 2015 (and 2017) Intersection LOS – Preferred Alternative .......................... 2-4 2-2 2015 (and 2017) Vehicle Queues: Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard – Preferred Alternative ............................................................... 2-5 2-3 Intersection LOS – With and Without DEIS Alternative 1 Without I-405 Improvements .................................................................................... 2-6 2-4 2015 (and 2017) Travel Time at I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange System without I-405 Improvements – Preferred Alternative ..................... 2-12 2-5 2015 (and 2017) Travel Time at I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange System –Without I-405 Improvements – Preferred Alternative .................. 2-13 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 viii Table of Contents ACRONYMS ADA Americans with Disabilities Act AOC Administrative Order of Consent BMP Best Management Practice CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act COR Commercial, Office, Residential Zoning Designation CY Cubic Yards DAHP Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DNAPL Dense, Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid DOE Washington State Department of Ecology EB Eastbound EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FS Feasibility Study GHG Greenhouse Gas IBC International Building Code ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers KCSWDM King County Storm Water Drainage Manual LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LOS Level of Service MTCA Model Toxics Control Act MTCO2e Metric Ton Carbon Dioxide Equivalent NB Northbound NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL National Priorities List OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark OMMP Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan PSE Puget Sound Energy R-10 Residential, 10 Units per Acre Zoning Designation RI Remedial Investigation RMC Renton Municipal Code ROD Record of Decision SB Southbound SEPA State Environmental Policy Act SMP Shoreline Master Program TDM Transportation Demand Management TESCP Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan TIP Transportation Improvement Program WAC Washington Administrative Code WB Westbound WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation Chapter I SUMMARY Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 1-1 Chapter 1 CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY 1.1 Introduction This chapter provides a summary of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project. It summarizes the Proposed Actions and briefly describes the Preferred Alternative as described and analyzed in the October 2012 EIS Addendum (EIS Addendum). This chapter also describes the purpose and content of the FEIS and related topics in a question and answer format. The Quendall Terminals site includes an approximately 20.3-acre Main Property along Lake Washington and an approximately 1.2-acre Isolated Property to the northeast. The site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and will undergo cleanup/remediation prior to redevelopment, under the oversight of EPA. The remedial investigation for the Quendall Terminals site has been completed. The property owners and EPA are currently in the process of preparing the feasibility risk assessment report. This work is being conducted under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; i.e., Superfund). CERCLA cleanup/remediation actions specified in EPA’s final cleanup remedy or any Natural Resources Damage (NRD) settlement could include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and in some of the upland portions of the site (Main Property), including possible placement of a soil cap across the entire Main Property, as well as retention/reestablishment and/or expansion of wetlands, and provision of associated buffers. Potential impacts associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process. The Quendall Terminals EIS impacts analyses assume an existing/baseline condition subsequent to cleanup/remediation (that is the condition of the site after remediation has been accomplished). 1.2 Proposed Actions The Proposed Actions for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project include: Master Plan approval from the City; Binding Site Plan approval from the City; Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval from the City; Other local, state, and federal permit approvals for construction and redevelopment; and, Construction and operation of the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project. 1.3 Preferred Alternative Subsequent to issuance of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the applicant formulated their Preferred Alternative, based in part, on information provided in the DEIS, comments from agencies and the public, input and continued coordination between the applicant and the City, and, additional analysis and master planning. This Preferred Alternative Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 1-2 Chapter 1 was the subject of the analysis in the EIS Addendum (see Figure 1-1 for a site plan of the Preferred Alternative). Similar to Alternatives 1 and 2 in the DEIS, the Preferred Alternative is intended to be a compact, urban mixed-use development. The project is planned to ensure that future redevelopment is compatible with the environmental remediation effort at the site that is currently underway. The Preferred Alternative is based on relatively minor modifications to the DEIS redevelopment alternatives. Under the Preferred Alternative, the majority of the development assumptions would be similar to those analyzed under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 (particularly DEIS Alternative 2), including: Retail/Restaurant Space (21,600 sq. ft. retail/9,000 sq. ft. restaurant) Office Space (none) Residential Units (692 units) Maximum Building Heights (64 ft.) Anticipated Site Population (1,108 residents) Anticipated Site Employment (50 employees) Parking (1,337 parking spaces) Landscape Design (shoreline restoration + native and ornamental planting in the upland area) Grading (53,000–133,000 CY of fill) Utilities (sewer and water from City of Renton; stormwater per applicable stormwater regulations) The following redevelopment assumptions for the Preferred Alternative have been modified from those described for Alternatives 1 and 2 in the DEIS: Shoreline Setback (100-ft. min. increased setback) Setbacks from Adjacent Properties (north: 38-95 ft.; south 40-200 ft.) View Corridors (Street “B” corridor enlarged) Building Height Modulation (4-story Building SW4 along southwest property line; 5- to 6- story buildings elsewhere onsite) Natural Public Open Space Areas – 3.7 acres, and Other Related Areas – 6.9 acres (10.6 acres total) Building Design (more brick, stucco, masonry, and precast concrete, and less metal siding) Emergency Access Road (in western portion of the site) Build-out Date (assumed to be 2017 in this FEIS) The Proposed Actions evaluated for the Preferred Alternative in the EIS Addendum were the same actions as those contemplated in the DEIS. 1.4 Description of the Final EIS and Related Topics Following is a description of the purpose and content of the FEIS and related topics in question/answer format. Source: Lance Mueller & Associates, 2013. Quendall Terminals Final EIS Figure 1-1 Preferred Alternative Site Plan Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 1-4 Chapter 1 Q1. What is the Final EIS (FEIS)? A1. This document is the FEIS for the Quendall Terminals Project. A FEIS is an environmental document that is prepared per the SEPA rules (WAC 197-11), following the issuance of a DEIS. This FEIS includes all substantive comments (WAC 197-11-560 (2)) received on the DEIS (and in this case, on the EIS Addendum as well), responds to these comments, and, as applicable, explains how certain comments are addressed in information and analyses contained in the DEIS and EIS Addendum. It has been determined that no new or modified alternatives are required to be evaluated in this FEIS. Additional transportation analysis has been included in this document to respond to comments on the DEIS and EIS Addendum. This FEIS, together with the DEIS and EIS Addendum, comprehensively analyze the probable significant environmental impacts of the Proposed Actions. Q2. What is contained in the Final EIS and how is it organized? A2. This FEIS consists of one volume and is divided into four chapters. Chapter 1 summarizes the Proposed Actions and the Preferred Alternative, describes the FEIS process and related topics, and includes the final list of mitigation measures. Chapter 2 identifies the key topic areas of the comments/questions received on the DEIS and EIS Addendum, provides a discussion for each area, and responses to the most often asked questions. Chapter 3 provides a copy of each comment letter received on the DEIS and EIS Addendum, the public hearing transcript on the DEIS, and responses to each substantive comment in the letters/transcript. The comment letters on the EIS Addendum are presented first, followed by the comment letters/transcript on the DEIS. Chapter 4 lists references noted in the FEIS. Q3. What constitutes the EIS for this Project? A3. The EIS is comprised of the information and analysis provided in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and this FEIS. Following are brief descriptions of the DEIS and EIS Addendum. DEIS In December 2010, a DEIS for The Quendall Terminals Project was issued by the City of Renton. In order to disclose environmental information relevant to the Quendall Terminals redevelopment and in compliance with SEPA, the DEIS evaluated two redevelopment alternatives (Alternative 1 – the subject of the November 2009 application, and Alternative 2 – a lower density alternative), as well as the No Action Alternative, as described below. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 1-5 Chapter 1 Alternative 1 Mixed-use development under Alternative 1 would include 800 multifamily residential units, 245,000 square feet of office space, 21,600 square feet of retail space, and 9,000 square feet of restaurant space on the Main Property. Parking for 2,171 vehicles would be provided within the proposed buildings, in one surface parking area, and along the main east/west roadway onsite. New public roadways and private driveways would provide vehicular access through the site and would include sidewalks and pedestrian amenities; private driveways would provide additional access to the buildings at the north and south ends of the site. A proposed trail would provide pedestrian access to the Lake Washington shoreline. No new development is proposed on the Isolated Property under Alternative 1. Alternative 2 - Lower Density Alternative Mixed-use development under Alternative 2 would include 708 multifamily residential units, 21,600 square feet of retail space, and 9,000 square feet of restaurant space on the Main Property; no office uses would be provided under this alternative. Parking for 1,364 vehicles would be provided within the proposed buildings, in two surface parking areas, two deck parking areas, and along the main east/west roadway. New public roadways and private driveways would provide vehicular access through the site and would include sidewalks and pedestrian amenities. A proposed trail would also provide pedestrian access to the Lake Washington shoreline. No new development is proposed on the Isolated Property under Alternative 2. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no new mixed-use development would occur on the Quendall Terminals site at this time. It is assumed that cleanup/remediation activities associated with the site’s status as a Superfund site by EPA would still occur. A Shoreline Restoration Plan would be implemented in conjunction with site cleanup/remediation. Since the cleanup/remediation remedy plan will anticipate potential redevelopment of the site, if no redevelopment occurs under the No Action Alternative, the baseline condition (post-remediation) would likely be somewhat different than the baseline conditions assumed for Alternatives 1 and 2 (i.e., no shoreline trail would be constructed and an interim stormwater control system would be installed). EIS Addendum Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, a Preferred Alternative was voluntarily developed by the applicant and the applicant’s technical team based on additional agency/community input (particularly from EPA), and continued input and coordination with the City of Renton. The Preferred Alternative was the subject of the analysis in the EIS Addendum. Preferred Alternative Similar to Alternatives 1 and 2 in the DEIS, the Preferred Alternative is intended to be a compact, urban mixed-use development. The project is planned to ensure that future redevelopment is compatible with the environmental cleanup/remediation effort at the Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 1-6 Chapter 1 site that is currently underway. In many respects, redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to that described in the DEIS for the redevelopment alternatives, particularly Alternative 2. For example, the following full build-out (for environmental review purposes, build-out was assumed to be 2015 in the EIS Addendum) redevelopment assumptions for the Preferred Alternative are similar to those described in the DEIS for Alternative 2: Retail/Restaurant Uses (21,600 sq. ft. retail/9,000 sq. ft. restaurant) Office Uses (none) Residential Units (692 units) Maximum Building Heights (64 ft.) Anticipated Site Population (1,108 residents) Anticipated Site Employment (50 employees) Parking (1,337 parking spaces) Landscape Design (shoreline restoration + native and ornamental plantings in the upland area) Grading (53,000–133,000 CY of fill) Utilities (sewer and water from City of Renton; stormwater per applicable stormwater regulations) The redevelopment assumptions under the applicant’s Preferred Alternative that have been modified from those described in the DEIS for Alternative 2 include: Shoreline Setback (100-ft. min. increased setback) Setbacks from Adjacent Properties (north: 38–95 ft.; south: 40–200 ft.) View Corridors (Street “B” corridor enlarged) Building Height Modulation (4-story Building SW4 along southwest property line; 5- to 6-story buildings elsewhere) Natural Public Open Space Areas - 3.7 acres and Other Related Areas – 6.9 acres (10.6 acres total) Building Design (more brick, stucco, masonry, and precast concrete, and less metal siding) Emergency Access Road (in the western portion of the site) Build-out Date (assumed to be 2017 in this FEIS) Probable significant impacts under the Preferred Alternative were analyzed in the EIS Addendum and compared to those impacts that were analyzed in the DEIS. Q4. What happens after issuance of the FEIS? A4. The Quendall Terminals DEIS, EIS Addendum, and FEIS will be used as tools by the City (along with other considerations, analyses, and public input) in their decision- making process on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project. This decision- making process is summarized below. Concurrent with preparation of this FEIS, City staff and the applicant prepared a Mitigation Document. The Mitigation Document establishes the specific mitigation measures for the Quendall Terminals Project. The Document includes: the final list of mitigation measures for the project; references to the significant impacts that the Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 1-7 Chapter 1 measures address (as identified in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and this FEIS); implementation discussion; and, citations of the City policies and regulations that authorize the mitigation measures. The Mitigation Document is being issued concurrent with publication of the FEIS. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-110(E)(4), any appeals of the FEIS and the Mitigation Document shall be made to the Hearing Examiner within 20 days after issuance of the FEIS and Mitigation Document. Following expiration of the appeal period on the FEIS and Mitigation Document, an open record public hearing will be held before the City’s Hearing Examiner to consider the Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and any appeals of the FEIS and Mitigation Document (RMC 4-8-100(F)). At least seven days prior to the scheduled public hearing, a City staff report will be filed with the Examiner (RMC 4-8-100(E)(2)). The City staff report is prepared by the Planning Division, and contains comments and recommendations of all City departments and government agencies having an interest in the subject application (RMC 4-8-100(E)(1)). The FEIS and Mitigation Document will accompany the City’s staff report to the Hearing Examiner (RMC 4-9-070(K)(5)). As part of the City’s preparation of the staff report, the applicant may be required to submit additional information on the project necessary for the Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approvals. Following the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner will issue a written decision including the following: (i) a decision on the appeal of the FEIS and Mitigation Document, if any (RMC 4-9-070(R)); (ii) a decision on the Master Plan; (iii) a decision on the Binding Site Plan; and, (iv) a recommendation on the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Any appeals of the Hearing Examiner’s decisions on the project must be filed with the City within 14 days of the Hearing Examiner’s written decision (RMC 4-8-110(E)(14)). The City will subsequently file its recommendation on the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit with the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). Q5. What is the assumed buildout date for the project? A5. The Quendall Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum assumed a project buildout date of 2015. The applicant has updated the assumed buildout date to 2017 for this FEIS. As appropriate, analyses included in the FEIS account for the updated buildout date. In particular see Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) for discussions of the updated transportation analysis. Q6. What are the final mitigation measures for the project? A6. Below is the final list of mitigation measures for the project. This list is also contained in the Quendall Terminals Mixed-Used Development Mitigation Document (a separate document). There is some duplication of mitigation measures under the various elements of the environment in the following list. This is necessary in order to clearly indicate how specific impacts to each element will be addressed by the project (i.e., the required stormwater control system will address impacts on water resources as well as critical areas, and as such is included under both elements). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 1-8 Chapter 1 A. Earth During Construction A1. A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP), including Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sedimentation control, shall be implemented. This plan shall include, but not limited to, the following measures: All temporary (and/or permanent) devices used to collect stormwater runoff shall be directed into tightlined systems that shall discharge to an approved stormwater facility. Soils to be reused at the site during construction shall be stockpiled or stored in such a manner to minimize erosion from the stock pile. Protective measures shall include covering with plastic sheeting and the use of silt fences around pile perimeters. During construction, silt fences or other methods, such as straw bales, shall be placed along surface water runoff collection areas in proximity to Lake Washington and the adjacent wetlands to reduce the potential of sediment discharge into these waters. In addition, rock check dams shall be established along roadways during construction. Temporary sedimentation traps or detention facilities shall be installed to provide erosion and sediment transport control during construction. The project construction shall adhere to the wet season construction requirements between October 1st and April 30th. A2. A geotechnical engineer that is a Certified Professional in Erosion and Sedimentation Control or a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead shall review the grading and TESCP plans prior to final plan design to ensure that erosion and sediment transport hazards are addressed during and following construction. As necessary, additional erosion mitigation measures could be required in response to specific design plans. A3. Site preparation for roadways, utilities, and structures, and the placement and compaction of structural fill shall be based upon the recommendations of a geotechnical engineer. A4. Temporary excavation dewatering shall be conducted if groundwater is encountered during excavation and construction activities. Such dewatering activities shall be conducted in a manner that shall minimize potential impacts due to settlement. A5. A geotechnical engineer shall determine whether structural fill shall be placed to control the potential for settlement of adjacent areas; adjacent structures/areas shall be monitored to verify that no significant settlement occurs. A6. A geotechnical engineer shall determine whether deep foundation systems (such as piles or aggregate piers) shall be installed and/or ground improvements made to Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 1-9 Chapter 1 minimize potential damage from soil settlement, consolidation, spreading, and liquefaction. A7. If deep foundation systems (such as piles or aggregate piers) are used to support structures, the following measures shall be implemented: Measures shall be employed to ensure that the site cap (i.e., soils/impervious surfaces, should they be installed) shall not be affected and that installation of the piles/piers shall not mobilize contamination that shall be contained by the cap. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall determine the appropriate measures to be employed, which could include: installation of surface casing through the contaminated zone; installation of piles composed of impermeable materials (steel or cast-in-place concrete) using soil displacement methods; the use of pointed-tip piles to prevent carry down of contamination; and/or, the use of ground improvement technologies, such as in-place densification or compaction grouting. A pile vibration analysis and vibration monitoring shall be conducted during pile installation in order to ensure that impacts due to vibration do not occur. Suitable pile and pile hammer types shall be matched to the subsurface conditions to achieve the required penetrations with minimal effort to reduce potential vibration. Potential pile types could include driven open-end steel pipe piles, driven closed-end steel pipe piles, or driven cast-in-place concrete piles. Potential hammer types could include percussion hammers or vibratory hammers. Suitable hammer and pile cushion types shall be used for the specific conditions to reduce potential noise. A typical hammer employs the use of a heavy impact hammer that is controlled by a lead, which is in turn supported by a crane. Pile installation shall occur during regulated construction hours. A8. Fill soils shall be properly placed and cuts shall be used to reduce the potential for landslide impacts during (and after) construction. A9. The appropriate management of contaminated soils that could be disturbed and groundwater that could be encountered during redevelopment of the site shall be addressed through the cleanup/remediation process and by institutional control requirements overseen by the EPA. Following Construction A10. A permanent stormwater control system shall be installed in accordance with the applicable stormwater regulations. A11. Offshore outfall locations for stormwater discharge from the permanent stormwater control system shall be equipped with energy dissipation structures or other devices to prevent erosion of the lake shoreline and bottom. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 1-10 Chapter 1 A12. All buildings shall be designed in accordance with the International Building Code to address the potential for seismic impacts. A13. The majority of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces following redevelopment. Permanent landscaping shall also be provided to reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation with redevelopment. A14. Flexible utility connections shall be employed to minimize the risk of damage to utility lines due to differential settlement between structures and underground utilities, as needed and as determined by the City’s responsible public official. B. Critical Areas During Construction B1. A TESCP, including BMPs for erosion and sedimentation control, shall be implemented during construction. Implementation of this plan shall prevent or limit impacts to the lake and shoreline wetlands from erosion and sedimentation. B2. If approved by EPA, trenching for utilities and stormwater outfalls shall be incorporated into site grading associated with remediation efforts to limit or prevent later disturbance of re-vegetated areas. B3. Upland areas on the Main Property (i.e., areas landward of the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback from Lake Washington’s ordinary high water mark (OHWM)) shall be temporarily re-vegetated (e.g., with hydro-seed) following site remediation, if building permits for the disturbed area have not been filed with the City of Renton. Following Construction B4. Proposed redevelopment shall avoid direct impacts to the on-site wetlands retained/re- established and/or expanded as part of EPA’s Record of Decision (ROD) for the remediation project or any Natural Resources Damage (NRD) settlement. B5. Retained/re-established and/or expanded wetlands, associated buffers, and all other habitat restoration areas required as part of EPA’s anticipated ROD for the remediation project or any NRD settlement shall be retained within and be a function of the open space tract(s). B6. Proposed buildings shall be setback a minimum of 100 feet from the OHWM, consistent with the City of Renton’s 2011 Shoreline Master Program. B7. A permanent stormwater control system shall be installed consistent with the applicable requirements. The system shall collect and convey stormwater runoff to Lake Washington via a tight-lined system or another system approved by the City’s responsible public official. Water quality treatment shall be provided for runoff from pollution-generating surfaces to prevent water quality impacts to the lake and shoreline wetlands. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 1-11 Chapter 1 B8. Native plant species shall be included within landscaping of the redeveloped upland area on the Main Property to the extent feasible, and could provide some limited habitat benefits to native wildlife species. B9. Introduction of noxious weeds or invasive species shall be avoided to the extent practicable in areas re-vegetated as part of the proposed redevelopment. Together with the native species planted, this shall help limit the unnecessary spread of invasive species that could adversely affect the suitability of open space habitats on site and in the vicinity for wildlife. B10. A publicly accessible, unpaved trail with interpretive viewpoints shall be provided through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area unless the trail is prohibited by the EPA ROD or any NRD settlement. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road. B11. The proposed redevelopment shall include design elements to minimize the potential adverse effects of artificial lighting on wetland, shoreline and riparian habitats, and adjacent properties. These elements shall include directing lighting downward and away from these habitats and adjacent properties, and shall also include shielding of lights, use of low-pressure sodium lights, and/or minimizing the use of reflective glazing materials in building design, as feasible. C. Environmental Health C1. Redevelopment of the site is being coordinated with the cleanup/remediation process, and shall be conducted consistent with the requirements in the final cleanup remedy selected and overseen by EPA, and with any associated institutional controls. C2. The appropriate management of contaminated soils that could be disturbed and groundwater that could be encountered during redevelopment of the site shall be addressed through the cleanup/remediation process and by institutional control requirements overseen by EPA. As necessary, lightweight fill materials, special capping requirements, vapor barriers, and/or other measures shall be implemented to ensure that unacceptable exposures to contaminated soils, groundwater, or vapors shall not occur. C3. Institutional controls shall be followed to prevent alteration of the site cap (should it be installed) without EPA approval, and to prevent the use of on-site groundwater for any purpose. C4. An Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) shall be implemented to prevent the excavation of soils, installation of utilities, or other site disturbances without prior EPA approval. C5. As necessary, personal protection equipment for workers shall be used and special handling and disposal measures followed during construction activities to prevent contact with hazardous materials and substances. C6. Institutional controls specified by EPA shall also be implemented to prevent exposure to unacceptable vapors. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 1-12 Chapter 1 C7. If approved by EPA, utilities (including the main utility corridors) shall be installed as part of the planned remedial action so that disturbance of the site cap (should it be installed) and underlying contaminated soils/groundwater shall not be necessary subsequent to capping of the Main Property. C8. Personal protection measures and special training costs shall be funded by the applicant for City of Renton staff who provide inspection during construction and maintenance following construction in areas where there is potential to encounter contaminated soils or groundwater. C9. If approved by EPA, buried utilities, public roads, and infrastructure serving the site development shall be placed in clean fill material (with the utilities in a trench with sufficient width and depth of 3 to 4 feet below the invert of the utility), along with an acceptable barrier to prevent recontamination of the clean fill material, in order to protect the utility from contamination and to allow future maintenance of the road or utility lines. If the above is not approved by EPA, no public utility lines shall be installed until the applicant, EPA, and the City agree upon appropriate protection measures for future road and utility maintenance. C10. If EPA issues a ROD that is different than what is assumed in the Quendall Terminals EIS, the City reviewing official shall determine whether the applicant shall be required to prepare additional SEPA review, including a possible supplement to the EIS or addendum to the EIS, to address any differences between the ROD and the assumptions in the EIS. D. Energy – Greenhouse Gas Emissions D1. Development may incorporate low-impact/sustainable design features into the design of proposed buildings on the site to reduce the demand for energy and reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Such features could include architectural design features; sustainable building materials; use of energy efficient products; natural drainage/green roof features; use of native plants in landscaping; and/or other design features. E. Land and Shoreline Use E1. New driveways, landscaping, surface parking areas, and proposed building setback areas shall be designed and constructed to provide a buffer between proposed buildings and land uses on adjacent properties. E2. Proposed landscaping, particularly along the north and south boundaries of the Main Property, shall be designed and constructed to provide a partial visual screen between proposed buildings and adjacent uses. E3. Architectural features (i.e., roof slope, façade modulation, building materials, etc.) shall be incorporated into the design of each building and are intended to enhance the compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding land uses. E4. As shown in the plans for the Preferred Alternative (see FEIS Figure 1-1, Preferred Alternative Site Plan), building heights shall be modulated to reduce potential height/bulk/scale impacts on adjacent development (i.e., Barbee Mill); Building SW4 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 1-13 Chapter 1 located adjacent to the southwest property line shall be 4 stories high; other buildings shall be 5 to 6 stories high. E5. A fire mitigation/impact fee shall be determined and paid for the proposed development at the time of building permit issuance and as required by the Renton Municipal Code to help offset the impacts of the project on the City’s fire emergency services. F. Aesthetics/Views F1. Building design shall include a variety of details and materials that are intended to create a human scale and provide a visually interesting streetscape and façade, such as horizontal plan modulation, projecting vertical elements, and alternating façade materials and details. F2. Street-level, under-building parking areas shall be screened from sidewalks and streets by retail and commercial uses along certain façades. Where this parking extends to the exterior of the building, elements, such as architectural façade components, trellises, berms and landscaping shall be used for screening. F3. Public view corridors toward Lake Washington shall be provided along the main east/west roadway onsite (Street “B”) and along the private driveways at the north and south ends of the site. Public views of the lake shall also be provided from the publically accessible trail in the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area in the western portion of the Main Property, if the trail is not prohibited by EPA or any NRD settlement. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road. Additional views of the lake shall be provided for project residents from semi-private landscaped courtyard areas between the new buildings onsite. F4. New landscaping shall be provided in the upland area of the Main Property that is intended to enhance the visual character of the site. Landscaping shall include new trees, shrubs, and groundcovers of various sizes and species. F5. Proposed landscaping along the north and south property lines shall be designed and constructed to provide a partial visual screen between proposed buildings and adjacent uses. F6. The natural vegetation in the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area and/or other site areas established or protected by EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement shall be retained with proposed site development. F7. Exterior building lighting, parking lot lighting, and pedestrian lighting shall be directed downward and away from surrounding buildings, properties, and the shoreline of Lake Washington to minimize the impacts to adjacent uses and fish. F8. As indicated in the plans for the Preferred Alternative (see FEIS Figure 1-1, Preferred Alternative Site Plan), building setbacks shall be provided adjacent to Lake Washington and along the south site boundaries, to enhance the aesthetic character of development and retain views of Lake Washington. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 1-14 Chapter 1 F9. Building height modulation shall be provided across the site to enhance the aesthetic character of development and retain some views of Lake Washington. F10. No surface parking shall be located at the terminus of Street “B” in order to enhance the aesthetic character of the development, particularly from the shoreline trail, if the trail is located within the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area and not prohibited by EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the trail within the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area, the trail shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road. F11. During final building design, maximum building heights 100 feet from the Lake Washington OHWM shall be reduced to one half of the maximum height allowed by the COR zone (125 feet allowed height x ½ = 62.5 feet), consistent with the City of Renton’s 2011 Shoreline Master Program, which will help maintain views toward the lake. F12. As determined by the City’s responsible public official, the amount of required parking may be reduced, relocated and/or redesigned (i.e., though implementation of transportation demand management (TDM) measures or other means) so that additional areas of the street-level, under-building parking can be setback from the exterior of the building, particularly along Streets “A”, “C”, and the lake side of the development. This will allow other uses, including retail, restaurant, commercial, and residential uses, and plaza areas to occupy these areas and enhance the aesthetic character at the ground level. F13. Reflectivity of glazing materials, as well as the use of shading devices, shall be considered as part of the façade design in order to minimize the potential glare impacts to surrounding uses. F14. Design features such as: public art, special landscape treatment, additional open space/plazas, landmark building form, special paving/pedestrian scale lighting, and/or prominent architectural features shall be provided as part of development to further enhance the gateway/landmark features on the site. F15. Vertical and/or horizontal modulation shall be provided along the west or lake side of the buildings to provide a human scale and break up the larger structures which will be adjacent to the shoreline area and pedestrian environment. G. Parks and Recreation Measures to Improve Public Open Space and Related Areas/Fees1 G1. A parks mitigation/impact fee shall be determined and paid for each multifamily unit in the proposed development at the time of building permit issuance and in accordance with the City of Renton Municipal Code. G2. As shown on the plans for the Preferred Alternative (see FEIS Figure 1-1, Preferred Alternative Site Plan), approximately 10.6 acres of “Natural Public Open Space Areas” and “Other Related Areas” shall be provided on the site. The “Natural Public Open 1 Hours of public access shall meet park standards of sunrise to sunset to count toward public recreation. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 1-15 Chapter 1 Space Areas” shall include the approximately 0.5-acre trail within the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area, and approximately 3.2 acres of natural area along the trail. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road. It is the City’s intent that the natural area along the trail be used for retained/re-established and/or expanded wetlands, associated buffers, and all other habitat restoration areas required as part of EPA’s ROD for the remediation project or any NRD settlement. The “Other Related Areas” onsite shall include street-level landscaping, landscaped courtyards, sidewalks, paved plazas, and the Isolated Property. These areas may or may not meet the City’s standards, regulations, and procedures for public open space. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement result in alterations to the plans for the Preferred Alternative, including the “Natural Public Open Space Areas” or “Other Related Areas”, the City could re-evaluate the plans. G3. Frontage improvements, including sidewalks, shall be provided along the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N along the site. These sidewalks shall connect to sidewalks to the north and south, which connect to other pedestrian facilities in the area. G4. If the trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area is not prohibited by EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement, public parking shall be provided in the same general area as the retail/restaurant parking; the applicant shall specifically identify this parking prior to site plan approval. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road; public parking shall be provided for the relocated trail as described above. Public parking spaces shall be provided as required by the Renton Municipal Code and the Shoreline Master Program, and shall be identified as public by signage or other means approved by the City. G5. Signage, detours, and safety measures shall be put in place to detour bicyclist from using the Lake Washington Loop trail at the time of construction. G6. If the trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area is not prohibited by EPA or any NRD settlement, the connection between the trail and Lake Washington Boulevard shall be enhanced by providing wider sidewalks (i.e., 15-foot wide) that are part of public rights-of-way along the Street “B” corridor. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road. The connection of the relocated trail to Lake Washington Boulevard shall also be enhanced by providing wider sidewalks (i.e., 15-foot wide), as described above. G7. If the trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area is not prohibited by EPA or any NRD settlement, the hours of public use (i.e., not the residents’ use) of the trail shall be determined by the City’s Community Services Administrator. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road; the hours of public use (i.e., not the residents’ use) of the trail shall be determined by the City’s Community Services Administrator. G8. Approximately 1.8 acres of indoor and/or outdoor area shall be provided onsite for active recreation (i.e., Frisbee, swimming pools, tot lots, bocce ball courts, exercise rooms, Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 1-16 Chapter 1 active recreation in courtyards, etc.), as approved by the City’s responsible public official. G9. A crosswalk including pedestrian crossing warning signs at and in advance of the crosswalk shall be provided across Lake Washington Boulevard in order to connect the proposed development to the May Creek Trail on the east side of the Boulevard. The crosswalk shall be controlled by Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, if the City determines that such lighting is warranted. G10. If the trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area is not prohibited by EPA or any NRD settlement, the trail and other recreation areas shall be enhanced with site amenities, such as tables, litter receptacles, benches, interpretive signage, etc., and approved by the City’s Community Services Administrator. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road; the trail and other recreation areas shall be enhanced with site amenities such as tables, litter receptacles, benches, interpretive signage, etc. and approved by the City’s Community Services Administrator. G11. The trail shall connect to the Barbee Mill residential development to the south. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road; the trail shall connect to the Barbee Mill residential development to the south. Measures to Improve Semi-Private Recreation Access for Residents G12. As part of the total open space, semi-private landscaped courtyards on top of the parking garages shall be provided as shared open space for residents of the site. These areas shall help to meet the demand for recreation facilities from project residents. G13. Street level landscaping, plazas, and sidewalks shall be provided. These areas will help meet the project’s demand for passive recreation facilities. H. Transportation With or Without Planned I-405 Improvements H1. A traffic mitigation/impact fee shall be determined and paid for the proposed development at the time of building permit issuance and in accordance with the City of Renton Municipal Code to help offset the impacts of the project on the City’s roadways. H2. TDM measures shall be implemented to reduce the number of vehicle trips and thus provide some benefit to improving LOS and queuing impacts at study intersections. H3. Infrastructure improvements within the site shall include full curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and landscape strips (where applicable) as well as frontage improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscape strips, bike lanes, pavement width, and utilities) along the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N in front of the project site. Provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall encourage future transit usage when planned public transit becomes available. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 1-17 Chapter 1 H4. If approved by EPA and any NRD settlement, a pedestrian trail shall be provided onsite through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area that shall be accessible to the public and shall connect to Lake Washington Boulevard through the internal site sidewalk system. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the trail, the trail shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road; this trail system shall connect to Lake Washington Boulevard through the internal site sidewalk system. H5. To mitigate traffic impacts to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor south of the development, the applicant shall install traffic calming treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 41st Street to encourage primary trips generated by the project to utilize the I-405 corridor. Although the City of Renton has no adopted residential traffic management program, arterial calming measures could include treatments that create either horizontal or vertical deflection for drivers. Such treatments could include, but are not limited to chicanes, serpentine raised curb sections, raised median treatments, speed tables, and/or speed humps. Final design of traffic calming elements shall be approved by the City. H6. The parking supply under the Preferred Alternative shall meet the minimum off-street parking requirements of the City of Renton. H7. Shared parking agreements between on-site uses and implementation of TDM measures for proposed residential uses shall be implemented to reduce parking demand during peak periods, thereby reducing the necessary parking supply. H8. A fire access road shall be provided to the west of the westernmost buildings onsite. The road shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide, and shall be constructed with crushed rock or grass-crete to support the weight of fire apparatus, and shall be available for emergency vehicle access. If located in the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area, and approved by the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement, the road shall also serve as a pedestrian trail. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibit the fire access road within the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area, the road shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the trail. H9. In order to promote a multimodal transportation network, redevelopment on the Quendall Terminals site shall include site amenities (i.e., planting strips, street lighting, etc.) and access to future transit zones on Lake Washington Boulevard and at the I-405/NE 44th Street interchange to encourage and accommodate public transportation access in the future (future potential public transportation in the vicinity could include Bus Rapid Transit on I-405 planned by Sound Transit and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) with a flyer stop at the I-405/NE 44th Street interchange). H10. A paved bicycle lane shall be provided along the east and west sides of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard from the end of the current bike trail along Ripley Lane to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard or a multi-use path could be developed on one side or separated from Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard to mitigate potential conflicts between bicycles and the Quendall Terminals site access point on Ripley Lane. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 1-18 Chapter 1 With Planned I-405 Improvements H11. Lake Washington Boulevard between Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street) and Ripley Lane N. The eastbound and westbound through lanes planned by WSDOT shall be extended beyond and through the Barbee Mill access intersection. This shall result in two through lanes in each direction on Lake Washington Boulevard from the I-405 interchange past the Barbee Mill access (N 43rd Street). Ultimately, the City of Renton shall determine the best configuration for the improvement, given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange design, King County (owner of the vicinity rail right-of-way), and adjacent private development. H12. Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street)/Lake Washington Boulevard. A traffic signal shall be installed at this intersection. At the Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street)/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection, the eastbound approach shall be widened to include a separate left-turn only lane and the northbound approach shall be widened to include a separate left-turn only lane. Ultimately, the City of Renton shall determine the best configuration for the improvements, given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange design, King County (owner of the vicinity rail right-of-way), and adjacent private development. If the traffic signal and eastbound left-turn lane at N 43rd Street have not been constructed prior to the WSDOT improvements at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, the City will consider changing the location of this signal to the intersection at Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard. Relocating the traffic signal to Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard could reduce/eliminate potential impacts of traffic queues on N 43rd Street between Lake Washington Boulevard and Road A and with the existing rail crossing (should it be re-activated for rail service or converted to a trail corridor). An engineering study will be completed at that time to support the determination of the location for the installation of the traffic signal at either N 43rd Street or Ripley Lane. Without Planned I-405 Improvements H13. Traffic Signals. Traffic signals shall be installed at the intersections of the I-405 northbound and southbound ramp intersections, as well as at the intersection of Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street)/Lake Washington Boulevard. The City will consider moving the location of this signal to the intersection at Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard as part of the future WSDOT improvement project to the NE 44th Street interchange. Relocating the traffic signal to Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard could reduce/eliminate potential longer-range impacts of traffic queues on N 43rd Street between Lake Washington Boulevard and Road A, and with the existing rail crossing (should it be re-activated for rail service or converted to a trail corridor). An engineering study will be completed at that time to support the determination of the location for the installation of the traffic signal at either N 43rd Street or Ripley Lane. H14. Intersection #1 - I-405 Northbound Ramps/NE 44th Street. The southbound and northbound approaches shall be widened so that a separate left turn lane and shared thru-right turn lane is provided on both legs of the intersection. The final configuration of the intersection with the additional widening improvements shall be coordinated with WSDOT. H15. Lake Washington Boulevard between Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street) and I-405 Southbound Ramps. Additional channelization improvements between the Barbee Mill Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 1-19 Chapter 1 access and the I-405 southbound ramps shall be constructed. Additional eastbound and westbound lanes shall be constructed to provide additional queue storage created by the traffic signals required at the southbound ramp and Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street) along Lake Washington Boulevard. At the Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street)/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection the westbound approach on the Barbee Mill Access shall be widened to include a separate left-turn only lane and the northbound approach on Lake Washington Boulevard shall be widened to include a separate left-turn only lane. Ultimately, the City of Renton shall determine the best configuration for the improvements, given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange design, King County (owner of the vicinity rail right-of-way), and adjacent private development. I. Cultural Resources I1. Limited and focused cultural resource monitoring shall be conducted during construction activities on the site (clearing and grading of the upland portion, construction of deep building foundations, and excavation of utilities). During construction, a monitoring plan and inadvertent discovery plan shall be developed as part of the project (see Appendix F to the Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum for a copy of the proposed monitoring plan and inadvertent discovery plan). I2. In the unlikely event that ground-disturbing or other activities result in the inadvertent discovery of archaeological deposits, construction activities shall be halted in the immediate area and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) shall be contacted. Work shall be halted until such time as further investigation and appropriate consultation is concluded. I3. In the unlikely event of the inadvertent discovery of human remains, construction shall be halted in the area, the discovery shall be covered and secured against further disturbance, and contact shall be made with law enforcement personnel, DAHP, and authorized representatives of the concerned Indian tribes. J. Construction Impacts Air Quality J1. Site development and construction activities shall comply with applicable Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) regulations regarding demolition activities and fugitive dust emissions. If approved by EPA, wetting of exposed soils, covering or wetting transported earth materials, washing of truck tires and undercarriages prior to travel on public streets, and prompt cleanup of any materials tracked or spilled onto public streets shall be provided. J2. The EPA cleanup/remediation process for the site and associated institutional control requirements shall ensure that unacceptable exposures to contaminated soils/dust and vapors shall not occur during or following construction. An OMMP shall be implemented to prevent the excavation of soils, installation of utilities, and other site disturbances without prior EPA approval. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 1-20 Chapter 1 Noise J3. Per the City of Renton’s construction standards related to permitted hours of work (RMC 4-4-030C), commercial and multifamily construction activities within 300 feet of residential areas shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours of 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM and no work shall be permitted on Sundays. The City of Renton Development Services Director shall be required to approve any work outside of these construction hours via a variance. J4. Noise from construction shall be governed by the timing restrictions and the noise limits included in the King County noise code requirements (KCC Section 12.88.040). This rule defines maximum permissible sound levels based on the zoning of the source and receiving properties and sets maximum levels and durations of allowable daytime construction noise. Q6. Why are certain terms used in the FEIS and the Mitigation Document different from those used in the DEIS and EIS Addendum? A6. In the Quendall Terminals DEIS (2010) and Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum (2012), the phrase “Shoreline Restoration Area” is used to indicate the building setback area from the Lake Washington ordinary high water mark (OHWM) in which a number of shoreline-related site cleanup and remediation activities would occur under the oversight of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and in which a number of restoration activities could potentially occur if a settlement is reached with the Natural Resource Trustees. In this FEIS and the Quendall Terminals Mitigation Document (2015), the phrase “Shoreline Restoration Area” has been replaced with the phrase “minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area.” This change was made in order to clarify that this area was set aside for activities that include retention/reestablishment and/or expansion of wetlands, and provision of associated buffers, as required by EPA in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the remediation project and any Natural Resource Damage (NRD) settlement. Chapter 2 KEY TOPIC AREAS Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-1 Chapter 2 CHAPTER 2 KEY TOPIC AREAS Consistent with SEPA requirements, a public comment period was provided for the December 2010 Draft EIS (DEIS). While not required by SEPA, a public comment period was also held for the October 2012 EIS Addendum (EIS Addendum). A total of 87 comment letters were received and public testimony was provided by 8 individuals during the public comment periods for these documents. All of the comments that were received, as well as responses to the substantive comments, are provided in Chapter 3 of this Final EIS (FEIS). A number of comments (written and verbal) on the DEIS and EIS Addendum were received that identified common subjects; these have been termed “key topic areas” in this FEIS. Rather than provide a similar response to each comment that shares a common theme, this chapter of the FEIS identifies the key topic areas, provides a discussion for each area, and responses to the most often asked questions. As appropriate, responses to specific comments in Chapter 3 of this FEIS which pertain to these topic areas are referred back to the discussion that is contained in this chapter. The following key topic areas are discussed in this chapter of the FEIS: 2-1 Transportation 2-2 Environmental Health 2-3 Building Height, Bulk, and Scale 2-4 Aesthetics/Views 2-5 Light and Glare 2-6 Archaeological and Cultural Resources 2.1 Transportation Introduction The relationship between proposed redevelopment on the Quendall Terminals site and the off- site transportation system was evaluated in detail in the DEIS and EIS Addendum. 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 analysis 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. Mitigation measures to reduce the potential transportation impacts from the Quendall Terminals Project were identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum, including intersection and roadway improvements, new traffic signals, infrastructure improvements for non-motorized transportation, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures, access to future transit zones, and new bicycle facilities. Updated transportation analysis was conducted for this FEIS to address comments received on the DEIS and EIS Addendum (which assumed a project build-out year of 2015), and to study the currently assumed project build-out year of 2017. A final list of transportation-related mitigation measures is presented in Chapter 1 of this document. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-2 Chapter 2 Summary of Environmental Analyses DEIS The DEIS described existing transportation conditions for the off-site transportation network at that time (2009/2010), including: nine study intersections and their existing traffic volumes and LOS; existing public transportation services, non-motorized transportation facilities; and, planned transportation improvements. The DEIS indicated that there are existing capacity and queuing issues on certain roadways. For example, the I-405 southbound ramps/NE 44th Street intersection currently operates at LOS F (southbound) in the AM peak hour (the City of Renton does not have a formally adopted LOS standard, but measures LOS on a travel time basis. LOS E was generally assumed as the threshold of acceptable service for the Quendall Terminals transportation impact analysis). 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), including: Reconfiguring the NE 44th Street interchange into a tight-diamond configuration; Relocating both the NB and SB ramps with additional through and turn-lanes; Addition of traffic signals at both NB and SB ramp intersections; and, Addition of a traffic signal at Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard. (These improvements are also identified in EIS Addendum Appendix E and are still valid; however, WSDOT is currently considering phasing of the improvements.) 2. Without I-405 Improvements. Based on the estimated project trip generation, and trip distribution and assignment, the associated intersection LOS impacts were analyzed for the proposed Quendall Terminals Project, without implementation of additional project mitigation measures in the DEIS. LOS impacts for the baseline condition (No Action Alternative) and DEIS Alternative 1 were analyzed in the DEIS for the assumed build-out year at that time (2015); 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 DEIS 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. With I-405 Improvements and no project mitigation, one intersection would operate at LOS E/F. Excessive southbound queues of approximately 700 to 800 feet would be anticipated at the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection southbound on Ripley Lane at build-out under DEIS Alternative 1 without I-405 Improvements and with no project mitigation; these queues would block key access intersections. Under DEIS Alternative 1 with I-405 Improvements and no project mitigation assumed, queue lengths at the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection would be reduced but would still be excessive; queues along Lake Washington Boulevard would extend beyond adjacent intersections. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-3 Chapter 2 Site access operations were also analyzed for proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site at build-out in the DEIS. Under DEIS Alternative 1 without I-405 Improvements and no project mitigation assumed, the site access at Ripley Lane would operate at LOS F and the site access at N 43rd Street would operate at LOS C/D. Under DEIS Alternative 1 with I-405 Improvements and no project mitigation assumed, the site access at Ripley Lane would operate at LOS C/D and the site access at N 43rd Street would operate at LOS D. Given the site location and current lack of transit service in the site vicinity, it is anticipated that residents and employees of Quendall Terminals would primarily rely on automobile transportation, and significant impacts from the proposed project on public transportation would not be anticipated. Increases in on-site population would result in increased demand for non- motorized transportation facilities and parking onsite. The proposed parking supply of 2,171 stalls under DEIS Alternative 1 and 1,362 stalls under DEIS Alternative 2 would meet the City’s parking standards, and would exceed estimated parking demand by approximately 281 to 350 stalls on a typical weekday and weekend day, respectively. 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 would be expected (see DEIS Section 3.9, Transportation/Traffic and Appendix H for details). EIS Addendum The EIS Addendum included an updated transportation analysis to respond to transportation- related comments received on the DEIS and provide analysis of the new Preferred Alternative described in that document. The Preferred Alternative would generate approximately 5,656 daily, 435 AM peak hour, and 530 PM peak hour vehicular trips. This trip generation would be less than DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 due to the reduced level of development proposed under the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, the transportation-related impacts of the Preferred Alternative would be similar to or less than DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2; impacts below are represented for the Preferred Alternative. The updated transportation analysis in the EIS Addendum included new traffic counts taken in 2012 at the site’s northernmost proposed access at Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street and revised traffic analysis at this location and adjacent affected intersections, as well as an updated LOS analysis at Lake Washington Boulevard/Park Avenue N, to reflect planned transportation improvements by the City of Renton. The updated analysis in the EIS Addendum determined that at the project build-out in 2015 assumed in that document, 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 (See EIS Addendum Table 3.4-2 for details. FEIS Table 2-1 compares the 2015 conditions under the Preferred Alternative with and without the I-405 Improvements, and with and without project mitigation; FEIS Table 2-2 compares existing conditions with 2015 conditions under the Preferred Alternative with and without the I-405 Improvements, with project mitigation. As explained later in this section the findings shown in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 also pertain to the currently assumed project build-out in 2017). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-4 Chapter 2 Table 2-1 2015 (AND 2017) INTERSECTION LOS – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE1 Int # Intersection Without I-405 Improvements, Without Project Mitigation Without I-405 Improvements, With Project Mitigation With I-405 Improvements, Without Project Mitigation With I-405 Improvements, With Project Mitigation LOS Delay (seconds) V/C LOS Delay (seconds) V/C LOS Delay (seconds) V/C LOS Delay (seconds) V/C AM Peak Hour 1 Lake Wa Blvd (I- 405 NB Ramp)/NE 44th Street F >100 - C 28 1.03 B 18 0.59 B 18 0.59 2 I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street SB-F >100 - E 78 1.03 C 22 0.53 C 22 0.53 3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street SB-F >100 - B 12 0.61 C 26 0.76 C 22 0.65 PM Peak Hour 1 Lake Wa Blvd (I- 405 NB Ramp)/NE 44th Street F >100 - B 17 0.62 B 17 0.40 B 17 0.40 2 I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street SB-F >100 - C 25 0.86 C 24 0.47 C 24 0.47 3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street SB-F >100 - B 14 0.77 C 26 0.76 C 26 0.74 Source: TENW, 2013. Note: Analysis was based on Synchro results using HCM 2000 control delays and LOS with optimized phasing/timing systems for signalized intersections. Delay is reported in seconds per vehicle. V/C is volume to capacity ratio. 1 Table 2-1 summarizes results of the transportation analysis prepared for the 2012 Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum. The assumed build-out year at that time was 2015. The assumed build-out year is now 2017. The results shown in Table 2-1 pertain to the revised build-out year, as described in the Key Topic Areas – Supplemental Transportation Review for 2017 Build-out Year and in Appendix C). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-5 Chapter 2 Table 2-2 2015 (AND 2017) INTERSECTION LOS COMPARED TO EXISTING CONDITIONS – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE1 Int # Intersection 2009/2010 Existing Conditions 2015 (and 2017) Without I- 405 Improvements, With Project Mitigation 2015 (and 2017) With I- 405 Improvements, With Project Mitigation LOS Delay (seconds) V/C LOS Delay (seconds) V/C LOS Delay (seconds) V/C AM Peak Hour 1 Lake Wa Blvd (I-405 NB Ramp)/NE 44th Street E 48 - C 28 1.03 B 18 0.59 2 I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street SB-F >100 2.32 E 78 1.03 C 22 0.53 3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street SB-D 26 0.20 B 12 0.61 C 22 0.65 PM Peak Hour 1 Lake Wa Blvd (I-405 NB Ramp)/NE 44th Street C 18 - B 17 0.62 B 17 0.40 2 I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street SB-C 22 0.61 C 25 0.86 C 24 0.47 3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street SB-C 18 0.32 B 14 0.77 C 26 0.74 Source: TENW, 2013. Note: Analysis was based on Synchro results using HCM 2000 control delays and LOS with optimized phasing/timing systems for signalized intersections. Delay is reported in seconds per vehicle. V/C is the volume to capacity ratio. 1 Table 2-2 summarizes results of the transportation analysis prepared for the 2012 Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum. The assumed build-out year at that time was 2015. The assumed build-out year is now 2017. The results shown in Table 2-2 pertain to the revised build-out year, as described in the Key Topic Areas – Supplemental Transportation Review for 2017 Build-out Year and in Appendix C). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-6 Chapter 2 With no I-405 Improvements and with implementation of the assumed project mitigation, the intersections forecasted to operate at LOS F listed above would improve to LOS E or better (see Table 2-1 for details). Under the Preferred Alternative with I-405 Improvements and with or without additional project mitigation assumed, all study intersections would operate at LOS C or better (see Table 2-1 for details). 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 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. Under the Preferred Alternative with I-405 Improvements and with no project mitigation assumed, excessive southbound queues of 350 to 450 feet would still be anticipated southbound on Ripley Lane at the Ripley Lane intersection, and queues on Lake Washington Boulevard would extend beyond adjacent intersections. 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. In either case, queues would not block adjacent intersections on Lake Washington Boulevard, and significant queuing impacts would not be expected (see Table 2-3 for details on vehicle queues at the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection and Figure 2-1 for a map of the vehicle queue movements; as explained later in this section the findings shown in Table 2-3 and Figure 2-1 also pertain to the currently assumed project build-out in 2017). Table 2-3 2015 (AND 2017) VEHICLE QUEUES: RIPLEY LANE/LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD. INTERSECTION – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE1 Movement Without I-405 Improvements, Without Project Mitigation Without I-405 Improvements, With Project Mitigation With I-405 Improvements, Without Project Mitigation With I-405 Improvements,W ith Project Mitigation AM (feet) PM (feet) AM (feet) PM (feet) AM (feet) PM (feet) AM (feet) PM (feet) EB Left 25 25 < 25 < 25 25 25 < 25 <25 SB Approach 800 900 1752 2002 350 450 1752 2002 EB Thru N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 250 225 150 125 WB Thru N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 125 400 50 150 WB Right N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 50 25 < 25 < 25 Source: TENW, 2013. Note: Intersection movements listed as N/A are not applicable given the assumed configuration of the intersection. Vehicle queues with project mitigation are reported for southbound left turns only. The through lane/right turn lane is forecast to have vehicle queues of 25 feet or less. 1 Table 2-3 summarizes results of transportation analysis prepared for the 2012 Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum. The assumed build-out year at that time was 2015. The assumed build-out year is now 2017. The results shown in Table 2-3 pertain to the revised build-out year, as described in the Key Topic Areas – Supplemental Transportation Review for 2017 Build-out Year and in Appendix C). Quendall Terminals Final EIS Source: TENW, 2015. Figure 2-1 Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard Intersection Movements - 2015 Vehicle Queues Note: This figure is not to scale. North * The new signal could be installed at Ripley Lane or N 43rd Street and the final location would be determined based on future design and engineering studies. * Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-8 Chapter 2 With the WSDOT I-405 Improvements, complete reconstruction and expansion of the existing I- 405/NE 4th Street Interchange is assumed. In addition to relocation of the ramp intersections, widening of the Lake Washington Boulevard approaches, NE 44th Street, and the freeway ramps would eliminate or significantly reduce forecasted vehicle queues due to the additional capacity provided by these improvements. With overall capacity improvements to I-405 with or without the proposed project, forecasted “diversion” of regional traffic to local arterials would be reduced, and overall traffic flows along Lake Washington Boulevard corridor and NE 44th Street would be reduced as well (see Table 2-3 for details on vehicle queues). The site access and circulation analysis was updated in the EIS Addendum as well. Under the Preferred Alternative without I-405 Improvements and without project mitigation, the southbound approach to the Ripley Lane/N 44th Street intersection would operate at LOS F and the southbound approach to the Barbee Mill (N 43rd Street)/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS C/D. With no I-405 Improvements and with implementation of the assumed project mitigation, the Ripley Lane/N 44th Street intersection would operate at LOS B. Under the Preferred Alternative with I-405 Improvements and without project mitigation, both the Ripley Lane/N 44th Street and the Barbee Mill (N 43rd Street)/Lake Washington Boulevard intersections would operate at LOS D or better. Public transportation, non-motorized transportation and parking impacts for the Preferred Alternative would remain the same as analyzed in the DEIS. In conclusion, traffic improvements were evaluated in the EIS Addendum to address existing transportation deficiencies and mitigate project-related traffic impacts. Project mitigation was identified with and without planned improvements to I-405 to ensure that the off-site roadway system would operate at an acceptable level with redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative. Specific mitigation was pinpointed at the I-405/NE 44th Street interchange adjacent to the Quendall Terminals site. As documented in the EIS Addendum, at present and at the project build-out in 2015 assumed in that document, the I-405 northbound and southbound ramp intersections with NE 44th Street would operate at LOS F without the project and without I-405 Improvements. With any development of the Quendall Terminals site, project mitigation would be required to the existing interchange ramp approaches to the Lake Washington Boulevard/NE 44th Street intersection if the planned I-405 Improvements are not constructed by WSDOT. These project mitigation measures would include intersection channelization, roadway widening, and signal installation at both I-405 ramp intersections with NE 44th Street, as well as a new signal at the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection (see Figure 2-2 for a conceptual illustration of the I-405/NE 44th Street interchange and Lake Washington Boulevard improvements without the I-405 Improvements). The EIS Addendum concluded that with or without the I-405 Improvements, and with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures, no significant transportation-related impacts would be expected (see EIS Addendum Section 4.8 and Appendix E for details). Quendall Terminals Final EIS Source: TENW, 2015. Figure 2-2 I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange and Lake Washington Boulevard Conceptual Improvements (without I-405 Improvements) NB R a m p SB R a m p * The new signal could be installed at Ripley Lane or N 43rd Street and the final location would be determined based on future design and engineering studies. * * Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-10 Chapter 2 FEIS Analysis 2012 Additional Transportation Analysis In response to comments received on the DEIS and EIS Addendum, in 2012 additional transportation analysis was conducted on the Park Avenue corridor and I-405 Exit 5 (N 30th Street) interchange in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site, and additional information related to congestion at the I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange was prepared for the FEIS. Park Avenue N (Kennydale Neighborhood) A number of public comments relayed concern that project traffic forecast to divert to the N 30th Street/I-405 Interchange would use Park Avenue N between N 40th Street and N 30th Street rather than the direct arterial connections of Burnett Avenue and N 30th Street. These comments concentrated on the peak morning commute periods. To evaluate this potential use of Park Avenue N by project traffic, traffic counts were taken at the Lake Washington Boulevard/N 40th Street and Park Avenue N/N 30th Street intersections in 2012 and reviewed for existing cut-through traffic and total traffic volume (see FEIS Appendix B for these counts). Existing 2-hour AM traffic counts taken at these intersections found a consistent peak hour that occurs between 7:15 AM and 8:15 AM. In total, traffic volumes entering or exiting the neighborhood during this hour was approximately 220 vehicles. In review of individual turning movements, no pattern was discerned that indicated the presence of existing cut-through traffic along this segment of Park Avenue N. Within the general vicinity of Park Avenue N between N 30th Street and N 40th Street, there are approximately 500 residential homes. Although other local street routes are available in the neighborhood, roughly 200 of these homes are located east of Park Avenue N and would have a very high propensity to use Park Avenue N for typical access/egress into the neighborhood. Of the remaining travel shed of homes that are west of Park Avenue N, up to one-third would be expected to also use Park Avenue N. As such, the approximate travel shed or number of homes that are currently served by Park Avenue N is estimated at roughly 300 dwelling units. Applying Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 2008 trip generation rates, an estimated 220 AM peak hour trips were calculated, which is consistent with observed traffic counts. In addition to the evaluation of traffic counts, a field review of the study intersections and Park Avenue N route was conducted. Visually and functionally, the Lake Washington Boulevard/N 40th Street intersection is a local street that serves a low density residential neighborhood. N 40th Street does not present itself as a street that would provide access to a freeway interchange, feel like an arterial connection while driving, nor have an alignment that directs a driver toward a “destination” (i.e., it turns in a direction that is counterintuitive as an alternative route to either the Lake Washington Boulevard or I-405 corridors). In conclusion, no existing diversion of traffic to the Park Avenue N roadway segment could be determined based on the evaluation of traffic volumes, and the roadway’s alignment/overall orientation and condition. Little if any traffic from the Quendall Terminals Project would be expected to divert to this roadway segment for the same reasons that existing traffic does not use this route. In addition, to address the potential for traffic impacts to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor south of the development, a project mitigation measure has been identified to install traffic calming treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard to the north of N 41st Street Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-11 Chapter 2 to encourage trips generated by the project to use I-405 (see Chapter 1 of this FEIS for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). N 30th Street/I-405 Interchange Traffic Impacts As noted in the DEIS and EIS Addendum, some project-traffic is forecast to divert to the N 30th Street/I-405 Interchange under the scenario where I-405 Improvements do not occur and project mitigation at the NE 44th Street/I-405 Interchange is not implemented (note: this is a forecasted diversion of traffic and not a direction of traffic to this route with signage or other means). It was estimated that up to 20 percent of all project traffic could use the N 30th Street/I-405 Interchange under this scenario. Key local intersections that would serve the arterial route to the interchange were reviewed in the DEIS and EIS Addendum, and it was determined that no significant traffic impacts would occur at these locations (i.e., all intersections would operate at LOS E or better). Since operation of the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange ramps was not evaluated in the DEIS or EIS Addendum, this analysis was conducted for the FEIS. As the peak morning commute period represents the worst-case for this diversion potential, existing traffic counts were collected during this period, baseline traffic forecasted, and project traffic impacts were evaluated at N 30th Street and the I-405 southbound and northbound ramp intersections, consistent with the study assumptions and methods used in the DEIS and EIS Addendum (see FEIS Appendix B). Traffic on the various intersection approaches to these two study intersections was forecast to increase between 2 and 11 percent between 2012 and 2015 (the assumed build-out year at that time), based on traffic forecast assignments prepared by the City of Renton, with or without the proposed Quendall Terminals Project. Table 2-4 summarizes 2012 existing, 2015 baseline (without the project/No Action), and 2015 with project intersection LOS analysis results at the N 30th Street and I-405 southbound and northbound ramp intersections without I-405 Improvements (as explained later in this section the findings shown in Table 2-4 also pertain to the currently assumed project build-out in 2017). As shown in Table 2-4, these intersections currently operate at LOS A and B, respectively, and would operate at LOS B and C, respectively, with or without the project in 2015, with no project mitigation. Therefore, diversion of up to 20 percent of the project traffic to the N 30th Street and I-405 Interchange ramp would result in no significant adverse impacts on the operation of the interchange intersections/ramps. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-12 Chapter 2 Table 2-4 2015 (AND 2017) INTERSECTION LOS - WITH AND WITHOUT PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WITHOUT I-405 IMPROVEMENTS Intersection 2012 Existing Conditions 2015 (and 2017) Without Preferred Alternative (Baseline/No Action)1 2015 (and 2017) With Preferred Alternative1 LOS Delay (seconds) LOS Delay (seconds) LOS Delay (seconds) I-405 SB Ramp/N 30th St A 10 B 10 B 14 I-405 NB Ramp/N 30th St B 14 C 17 C 22 Source: TENW, 2012. Note: Analysis based on Highway Capacity Manual Software results using HCM 2000 control delays and LOS for all-way stop controlled intersections. 1 Table 2-4 summarizes results of the additional transportation analysis prepared for the Quendall Terminals FEIS in 2012. The assumed build-out year at the time of the analysis was 2015. The assumed build-out year is now 2017. The results shown in Table 2-4 pertain to the revised build-out year, as described in the Key Topic Areas – Supplemental Transportation Review for 2017 Build-out Year and in Appendix C). (See Appendix B to this FEIS for observed 2012 traffic counts, 2015 intersection turning movement forecasts, and LOS summary worksheets). Congestion at I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange Table 2-5 compares the estimated 2015 travel conditions under three scenarios to illustrate the effect that project-related mitigation would have on future traffic conditions in terms of travel time experience: 1) without the project; 2) with the project and without project mitigation; and, 3) with the project and with project mitigation (as explained later in this section the findings shown in Table 2-5 also pertain to the currently assumed project build-out in 2017). This comparison shows the forecasted levels of congestion at the I-405/NE 44th Street interchange system with and without the Quendall Terminals Project, assuming none of the planned WSDOT improvements are completed along I-405 or at the interchange as part of the I-405 Master Plan. As shown in Table 2-5, in 2015 significant delays greater than 9 minutes without the project and greater than 10 minutes with the project, are forecast to occur with no project mitigation. With redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative, and no assumed project mitigation, delays on certain roadway approaches would more than double relative to the without project condition. However, with implementation of the identified project mitigation, forecasted travel delay experienced by drivers would significantly improve (to less than half the delay that would occur in 2015 without the project; all of the travel times experienced at the studied intersections would be under one minute). Therefore, the project mitigation identified in this FEIS would result in conditions that are substantially improved over future traffic operations without the project (see FEIS Chapter 1 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-13 Chapter 2 Table 2-5 2015 (AND 2017) TRAVEL TIME AT I-405/NE 44th STREET INTERCHANGE SYSTEM WITHOUT I-405 IMPROVEMENTS - PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE1 2015 (and 2017) Without Project (Baseline/No Action) 2015 (and 2017) With Project, Without Project Mitigation (Preferred Alternative 2015 (and 2017) With Project, With Project Mitigation (Preferred Alternative) Int.# Intersection Approach Travel Time Experience Approach Travel Time Experience Approach Travel Time Experience AM Peak Hour 1 Lake Wa Blvd (I-405 NB Ramps)/NE 44th St Eastbound (Toward NB On-Ramp) 2-1/2 minutes Eastbound (Toward NB On-Ramp) 6 minutes Eastbound (Toward NB On-Ramp) < 30 seconds* Southbound (from Lake Wash Blvd) 2-1/2 minutes Southbound (from Lake Wash Blvd) 3-1/2 minutes Southbound (from Lake Wash Blvd) < 1 minute* 2 I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street Eastbound (Toward NB On-Ramp) 2-1/2 minutes** Eastbound (Toward NB On-Ramp) 6 minutes** Eastbound (Toward NB On-Ramp) < 1 minute* Southbound (from I-405 Off Ramp) 2-1/2 minutes** Southbound (from Lake Wash Blvd) 6 minutes** Southbound (from Lake Wash Blvd) < 1 minute* 3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street Southbound (from Ripley Lane) 35 seconds Southbound (from Ripley Lane) > 10 minutes Southbound (from Ripley Lane) < 15 seconds Eastbound (Toward I-405 Ramps) 2-1/2 minutes** Eastbound (Toward I-405 Ramps) 6 minutes** Eastbound (Toward I-405 Ramps) < 15 seconds PM Peak Hour 1 Lake Wa Blvd (I-405 NB Ramps)/NE 44th St Westbound (Toward I-405/LWB) 2 minutes Westbound (Toward I-405/LWB) 3 minutes Westbound (Toward I-405/LWB) 15 seconds Northbound (from I-405) 1 minute Northbound (from I-405) 2 minutes Northbound (from I-405) 15 seconds 2 I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street Southbound (from I-405 Off Ramp) 9 minutes Southbound (from I-405 Off Ramp) > 10 minutes Southbound (from I-405 Off Ramp) 25 seconds 3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street Southbound (from Ripley Lane) 30 seconds Southbound (from Ripley Lane) 9-1/2 minutes Southbound (from Ripley Lane) 20 seconds Source: TENW, 2013. * - This estimated travel time experience assumes freeway operations do not spill over onto adjacent arterial street system due to incident or adverse freeway congestion. ** -This estimated travel time experience is a function of adjacent intersection at I-405 NB Ramps at NE 44th Street/Lake Wash Blvd. Note: Areas highlighted in orange indicate intersection approaches that would operate poorly in 2015, with or without the project. 1 Table 2-5 summarizes results of the additional transportation analysis prepared for the Quendall Terminals FEIS in 2012. The assumed build-out year at the time of the analysis was 2015. The assumed build-out year is now 2017. The results shown in Table 2-5 pertain to the revised build-out year, as described in the Key Topic Areas - Supplemental Transportation Review for 2017 Build-out Year and in Appendix C). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-14 Chapter 2 Supplemental Transportation Review for 2017 Build-out Year The transportation analyses prepared for the DEIS and EIS Addendum assumed a project build- out year of 2015. Given the amount of time that has passed, the assumed project build-out year has been revised to 2017. In early 2015, supplemental transportation review was completed for the Quendall Terminals FEIS to confirm that the DEIS and EIS Addendum analyses are valid for the currently assumed build-out in 2017. The supplemental analysis concentrated on: The Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton (October 2014) prepared by KPG on behalf of the City of Renton that addressed cumulative impacts of the Quendall Terminals development and five other known pipeline projects, with an emphasis on traffic operations along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor from the NE 44th Street Interchange to N Park Drive; Historical traffic counts within the Quendall Terminals FEIS study area, including a comparative analysis of existing traffic counts completed for the Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton; and Updated references for project trip generation. (See below and FEIS Appendix C for details.) North Renton Traffic Study In 2014, the City of Renton retained KPG to conduct a detailed review of near-term and long- term transportation needs in North Renton, with a specific focus along the Lake Washington Boulevard Corridor. The Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton collected new peak hour traffic volumes in 2014, prepared both near-term and 20-year traffic projections in 2035 using the latest City of Renton Travel Demand Model, and evaluated a number of scenarios considering various development timing of know pipeline projects and transportation infrastructure needs along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor with and without I-405 improvements. In summary, the Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton concluded that the project-specific mitigation without I-405 Improvements for Quendall Terminals would be adequate in the near-term and that the City should consider relocation of the future signalized access into Quendall Terminals from Seahawks Way (Ripley Lane) to N 43rd Street. To accommodate this potential relocation, the project-specific mitigation in the Quendall Terminals FEIS have been modified in order for the City, WSDOT, the applicant, and other adjacent property owners to further consider this potential signal relocation in future design of the interchange system (see FEIS Chapter 1 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). Signal Relocation at Quendall Terminals Access From a long-range transportation planning perspective, ideal separation between signalized intersections is considered to be good engineering practice. Relocation of a future signal to serve the Quendall Terminals development to N 43rd Street could create additional challenges that were not considered in the Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton. For example, inadequate spacing between a signalized intersection at N 43rd Street and Lake Washington Boulevard and the existing railroad crossing (estimated at approximately 50 feet between the signalized stop bar and the railroad crossing) would provide an inadequate approach configuration for the minor street approach of N 43rd Street as a signalized intersection, and Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-15 Chapter 2 would only effectively serve the Quendall Terminals project and adjacent residential development. Relocation of the signal southward to N 43rd Street would likely create turning restrictions at the Seahawks Way (Ripley Lane) intersection to allow for safe and efficient movements, which could lead to unintended cut-through traffic through Quendall Terminals and Hawks’ Landing. While not ideal intersection spacing for signals, the currently proposed location identified in the Quendall Terminals FEIS does serve multiple existing and proposed residential, commercial, and sport training facilities; could be coordinated with signalized intersections as part of the new NE 44th Street/I-405 Interchange system; and, has been demonstrated to fully mitigate project traffic impacts of the Quendall Terminals and other vicinity development projects with or without I-405 widening. Recommendation as to the ultimate signal location for the Quendall Terminals project will be deferred to final design of the NE 44th Street/I-405 Interchange system by WSDOT and the City of Renton. (See FEIS Appendix C for details.) Historical Traffic Count Comparison Existing conditions data used as the basis for the Quendall Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum included a combination of collection of traffic counts and referencing other source data from other recent traffic studies completed prior to 2010. For the purposes of the DEIS and EIS Addendum, these existing counts were then factored to forecast a 7-year growth projection to 2015, the assumed build-out at that time, using the City’s subarea model and application of additional growth based on known pipeline development. This forecasting method was conservative in that it double-counted growth projects at certain locations in the pipeline, while also considering other local and regional growth. Since completion of the Quendall Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum, additional traffic counts have been collected at key intersections along the critical Lake Washington Boulevard corridor. The Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton collected traffic data in 2014 and completed a forecasting process similar to that contained in the Quendall Terminals DEIS. A comparison between the data and analysis on intersections along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor in the recent traffic study to the data/analysis in the DEIS and EIS Addendum was prepared for the Quendall Terminals FEIS (see FEIS Appendix C). Two important conclusions were drawn from this comparison: 1. The growth factors used in the Quendall Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum transportation analyses require no updating to account for the currently assumed build- out in 2017, as they are consistent with those in the 2014 Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton. 2. There has been no effective growth in traffic volumes during the critical PM peak hour at study intersections along Lake Washington Boulevard between 2009 and 2014. Therefore, the near-term growth projections used in the Quendall Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum transportation analyses are consistent with those in the Traffic Study for Development in North Renton. In conclusion, the existing traffic counts and forecasted background conditions in the Quendall Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum are consistent with current conditions in the study area and reflect the growth projected in the near-term in the 2014 North Renton traffic study. Therefore, Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-16 Chapter 2 no update to the traffic studies in the Quendall Terminals FEIS is warranted to account for the currently assumed build-out in 2017. (See FEIS Appendix C for details.) Project Trip Generation Project trip generation rates used in the Quendall Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum transportation analyses were based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition (2008). In 2012, a 9th edition of this manual was released by ITE. Trip generation rates that were used in the Quendall Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum transportation analyses did not change in the new manual. Therefore, the trip generation rates in the Quendall Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed build-out in 2017. (See FEIS Appendix C for details.) Conclusion As described above, the transportation analyses prepared for the Quendall Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed build-out in 2017 because: The underlying basis used to apply growth factors in the Quendall Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum transportation analyses is consistent with that used in the 2014 Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton. There has been no effective growth in traffic volumes during the critical PM peak hour at the study intersections between 2009 and 2014; therefore, the existing traffic counts and near-term growth projections used in the Quendall Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum are equivalent to those used in the 2014 North Renton traffic study. The ITE trip generation manual was updated subsequent to issuance of the Quendall Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum. However, the trip generation rates that were used in the DEIS and EIS Addendum for apartments, offices, retail and restaurants were not changed in the updated ITE manual. Therefore, the trip generation rates used in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid. Based on the above, it was determined that no additional analysis of the currently assumed Quendall Terminals Project build-out of 2017 is warranted in this FEIS. Therefore, the project mitigation measures identified in the EIS Addendum for the 2015 build-out year are valid for the 2017 build-out year. Summary of Responses to Comments A number of comments were received on the DEIS and EIS Addendum related to transportation. The primary comments/questions are summarized below, followed by responses (see Chapter 3 for responses to specific individual comments). Transportation 1 – What methods were used for determining transportation impacts, and were planned projects in the site vicinity (e.g., Hawk’s Landing) included in the analysis? Appendix H to the DEIS and Appendix E to the EIS Addendum included complete descriptions of the methods used for the Quendall Terminals transportation analyses. A summary of these methods is provided below. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-17 Chapter 2 In order to analyze the transportation impacts of the Quendall Terminals Project, assumptions were made for the future baseline transportation network, including two possible future baseline scenarios: 1) with I-405 Improvements and 2) without I-405 Improvements. Baseline travel demand forecasts were prepared for the assumed build-out year in the DEIS and EIS Addendum (2015) of the Quendall Terminals Project using the most up-to-date land use and travel demand forecasting information from the City of Renton 2015 EMME Travel Model. The specific transportation analysis zone (TAZ) for the Quendall Terminals site in the City’s EMME model included traffic from future development projects that are planned, in process, or in the pipeline, including Barbee Mill, Hawks Landing, Kennydale Apartments, and other vicinity background traffic growth. Turning movements of the trips from Barbee Mill, Hawks Landing, and the Kennydale Apartment projects were added to the roadway network at each off-site study intersections under both the with and without I-405 Improvements scenarios. 2009/2010 turning movement counts conducted at all off-site study intersections during the PM peak hour were used as the “existing condition”, which is consistent with current conditions in the study area (see Historical Traffic Count Comparison above). A model was developed to adjust traffic forecasts associated with the two future transportation scenarios (with and without I-405 Improvements) to estimate the redistribution of future background traffic associated with intersection and arterial improvements. A growth factor was used to forecast future baseline interchange intersection turning movements in order to determine the most logical distribution of vehicle trips expected through an intersection. Trip generation rates for the proposed EIS redevelopment alternatives were estimated using the ITE Trip Generation 8th Edition, 2008 to estimate daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips. In response to DEIS scoping comments, trips generated by proposed Quendall Terminals residential uses were increased by 10 percent to account for no existing public transit service or commercial uses in the vicinity. In addition, average pass-by rates for the proposed retail uses identified in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook 2nd Edition, June 2004 were used. Gross trip generation was reduced to take into account trips captured within the site. The distribution of trips to the area roadway network from the Quendall Terminals Project was based upon the City of Renton EMME Model. Specific trip distribution and assignment was completed for both the with and without I-405 Improvements scenarios. Under the without I-405 Improvements scenario, vehicle trips from the Quendall Terminals Project would be distributed as follows: 20 percent to the south on I-405 via Lake Washington Boulevard, Burnett Avenue N, and N 30th Street; 45 percent to the north on I-405 on NE 44th Street; 15 percent to the south on Lake Washington Boulevard (south of Burnett Avenue N); 10 percent to the north on Lake Washington Boulevard (north of NE 44th Street); and, 10 percent to the east via Lincoln Avenue NE. Under the with I-405 Improvements scenario, significant congestion relief is forecast to occur on I-405 and parallel routes, shifting project-generated traffic back onto the I-405 corridor and NE 44th Street interchange. As such, vehicle trips from the site would be distributed as follows: 30 percent to the south on I-405 via NE 44th Street; 45 percent to the north on I-405 via NE 44th Street; Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-18 Chapter 2 15 percent to the south on Lake Washington Boulevard (south of the project site); 5 percent to the north on Lake Washington Boulevard (north of the project site); and, 5 percent to the east via Lincoln Avenue NE. Based on the baseline transportation network assumptions, travel demand forecasts, and new trips generated by the proposed project and planned/pipeline projects, the following analyses were conducted: intersection LOS, queuing, site access and circulation, public transportation, and non-motorized transportation. The results of these analyses were documented in the DEIS and EIS Addendum. (See Appendix H to the DEIS and Appendix E to the EIS Addendum for details on the methods used for the transportation analyses.) Transportation 2 – Why does the EIS assume such a large amount of parking on the site? The EIS analysis of parking evaluated a reasonable upper level of parking supply for the purpose of disclosing potential parking impacts. The proposed parking supply under the redevelopment alternatives, as identified by the applicant, would meet the minimum off-street parking requirements of the City of Renton. Although the actual parking supply associated with redevelopment could be less than that analyzed in the EIS, the analysis provided a reasonable upper level determination of potential parking impacts. As future redevelopment occurs on the site, the parking supply would be re-evaluated and appropriate reductions could be made based on the potential implementation of shared parking agreements or other Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce parking demand. Transportation 3 – What measures have been identified to mitigate potential transportation impacts associated with redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site? The transportation-related mitigation measures listed in Chapter 1 (subsection H – Transportation, identified as H1 –H15) of this FEIS are the final mitigation measures to address the potential transportation impacts with proposed redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative. These measures are also contained in the Quendall Terminals Mixed-Use Development Mitigation Document. Transportation 4 – What affect would implementation of the mitigation measures proposed for the Preferred Alternative have on transportation conditions in the area? Several intersections in the site vicinity currently operate at unacceptable LOS and experience excessive queuing and delays; these intersections will continue to operate poorly in the future if the project is not developed and the I-405 improvements are not constructed. General traffic operations and vehicle queuing/delays are anticipated to improve at these intersections, and would fall within acceptable traffic operational conditions with implementation of the project mitigation measures identified in Chapter 1 of this FEIS, with or without the I-405 Improvements (see EIS Addendum Table 3.4-6 and FEIS Tables 2-1 and 2-2 for details on the LOS and queues at these intersection with implementation of the project mitigation). As shown in Table 2-5 in this FEIS, with no I-405 improvements, and with implementation of the project mitigation measures identified in this FEIS (see Chapter 1), travel times in the vicinity of the site would be substantially reduced as compared to future traffic conditions without the project. In conclusion, Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-19 Chapter 2 there are no significant adverse transportation-related impacts that cannot be mitigated with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures. 2.2 Environmental Health Introduction Historic industrial activities on the Quendall Terminals site (i.e., creosote manufacturing, and waste oil and diesel storage) have resulted in the release of various contaminants into the soil and groundwater. From the 1980s through 2005, the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) provided oversight for the cleanup/remediation of the site under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). In 2005, DOE requested that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assume the responsibility for directing and overseeing the cleanup/remediation, and the project was added to EPA’s Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). The cleanup/remediation of the Quendall Terminals site is being conducted through a separate process with EPA; the proposed Quendall Terminals Project that is analyzed in this EIS would be consistent with the requirements in the final cleanup remedy that is selected and overseen by EPA, including any associated institutional controls for the site. It is also possible a Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) will be conducted by the Natural Resource Trustees (comprised of state and federal agencies and Tribes) to assess the extent of injury to selected natural resources at the Quendall Terminals site from past releases of hazardous substances. The NRDA process could form the basis for a Natural Resource Damage (NRD) settlement that would be expected to result in actions to restore and enhance on-site habitats. The analyses in this EIS (including the DEIS, EIS Addendum, and this FEIS) solely address the impacts that may occur due to post-cleanup and post-NRD restoration/enhancement redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site, and assume an existing/baseline condition subsequent to cleanup/remediation/restoration/enhancement. Summary of Environmental Analysis DEIS The DEIS briefly summarized the history of the site and the site’s current conditions; referred to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) process and its regulatory requirements; and, discussed protocols and institutional controls that will ultimately set out requirements and compliance methods for construction and long-term redevelopment of the site. As noted above, the DEIS impact analyses assumed an existing/baseline condition subsequent to cleanup/remediation (that is, the condition of the site after remediation has been accomplished); only the probable significant environmental impacts and applicable mitigation measures related to redevelopment of the site under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 were addressed in the DEIS. The following elements were assumed to be included as part of the site cleanup/remediation process and formed the baseline/existing conditions for purposes of analysis in the DEIS: Placement of a 2-foot-thick sand cap over the upland portion of the Main Property. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-20 Chapter 2 Placement of a 2- to 3-foot-thick layered cap consisting of organoclay, sand, gravel, and topsoil over most of the sediments within the shoreline area adjacent to and lakeside of the former Quendall Pond (approximately 300 linear feet of shoreline). Excavation of shoreline soil to accommodate the shoreline cap. Filling of certain existing on-site wetlands. Implementation of a Shoreline Restoration Plan, including re-establishing and expanding certain wetlands, and recreating/enhancing riparian habitat to replicate the existing riparian functions. Possible localized soil removal (i.e., in the former railroad loading area and in planned utility corridors onsite). Possible installation of a permeable shoreline groundwater treatment wall adjacent to portions of the lake shoreline. Implementation of institutional controls to prevent alteration of the cap during redevelopment without EPA approval, and to prevent the use of on-site groundwater for any purpose. Implementation of an Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) that would present a process for obtaining EPA approval if future excavations, utility installations, or other site disturbances are necessary after implementation of the final remedial action. (See DEIS Section 3.3, Environmental Health, and Appendix D for more information on these assumptions.) The DEIS provided an overview of the status of the cleanup/remediation process. At the time of publication of the DEIS, the responsible parties for the remediation and cleanup of the Quendall Terminals site (Altino Properties and J.H. Baxter and Company) were in the process of completing a remedial investigation (RI) and feasibility study (FS). The RI/FS is intended to comprehensively evaluate environmental conditions on the site and review various remediation options, from which EPA will choose a preferred cleanup remedy. A final cleanup remedy for the site will be selected following a public comment period. As described above, remediation and cleanup activities are part of a separate process and are not part of this SEPA environmental review for the Quendall Terminals Project. While part of a separate process, redevelopment under the Quendall Terminals Project is being coordinated with the cleanup/remediation process and would be conducted consistent with the requirements in the final cleanup remedy selected and overseen by EPA, and with any associated institutional controls. (See DEIS Section 3.3, Environmental Health, and Appendix D for details.) EIS Addendum Similar to the analysis of DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 in the DEIS, the analysis of the Preferred Alternative in the EIS Addendum assumed an existing/baseline condition subsequent to cleanup/remediation. The probable significant environmental impacts and applicable mitigation measures related to redevelopment of the site with the applicant’s Preferred Alternative were addressed in the EIS Addendum. Based upon the March 13, 2012 comment letter from EPA on Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-21 Chapter 2 the DEIS (see Comment Letter 4 to the DEIS in Chapter 3 of this FEIS), EPA considered that the baseline assumptions from the DEIS listed above were reasonable given the expected general outcome of the Record of Decision (ROD), with the exception of those related to the shoreline setback and wetland buffers. The baseline assumptions used in the DEIS were based on the Renton Shoreline Management Plan (1983) in place at the time complete applications for the Quendall Terminals Project were submitted to the City, and other relevant information described in Appendix E to the DEIS. In 2011, the City’s Shoreline Master Program was issued, and more stringent shoreline setbacks and wetland buffers were established. EPA indicated in their comment letter on the DEIS that final mitigation/restoration requirements will be based on the regulations in place at the time EPA issues their Record of Decision (ROD) -- the final cleanup and mitigation plan for the site. According to current City of Renton regulations and standards, the wetland and shoreline restoration areas would be larger than those assumed in the DEIS. As suggested by EPA in their comment letter on the DEIS, a 100-foot minimum setback from the shoreline was assumed in the EIS Addendum under the Preferred Alternative; all other baseline assumptions were the same as those listed above. Similar to the DEIS, the EIS Addendum assumed that the Quendall Terminals site would be capped as part of remediation, which would limit the potential for exposure to contaminated soils and groundwater. Redevelopment activities on the site under the Preferred Alternative, including the installation of deep foundations (i.e., piles) and construction/excavation for utilities, could generate contaminated soil and/or groundwater to which workers and City inspectors could be exposed. As necessary, personal protection equipment for workers would be used and special handling and disposal measures would be followed during construction to prevent contact with hazardous materials and substances. These measures would also be provided to City staff that would conduct inspections and maintenance following construction activities. Volatile contaminants in the subsurface could also generate vapors that could intrude into utility trenches and above-grade structures. However, the separation of living/working areas from contaminants by the site cap, under-building parking proposed with the Preferred Alternative, and implementation of institutional controls during site remediation would ensure that future residents and employees would not be exposed to unacceptable vapors, and no significant impacts would be anticipated. The EIS Addendum provided an update on the status of the cleanup/remediation process. As described in that document, the responsible parties had completed and submitted a Draft RI to EPA for review. The Draft RI identifies contaminants of interest and documents the extent of contamination on the site. According to the Draft RI, contamination of the Quendall Terminals site consists of chemicals of potential concern that are adhered to soil particles and dissolved in water or concentrated as dense, non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) in the subsurface. Large areas of soil contamination are located along the east side of the site, as well as at the east end of the former T-dock pier that extended into Lake Washington. Groundwater contamination in the shallow aquifer beneath the site underlies a majority of the Quendall Terminals site. Sediment contamination is generally located around the former T-dock pier and east of the property boundary. The EIS Addendum indicated that responsible parties are in the process of preparing a Draft FS to evaluate appropriate remedial alternatives and select a preferred remediation alternative for the site. (See EIS Addendum Section 4.3, Environmental Health, and Appendix B for details.) Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-22 Chapter 2 Summary of Responses to Comments Several comments were received on the DEIS and EIS Addendum related to site cleanup and remediation of the Quendall Terminals site and the relationship of these activities to the proposed redevelopment. The primary comments/questions are summarized below, followed by responses (see Chapter 3 for responses to specific individual comments). Environmental Health 1 – What is the status of the EPA cleanup/remediation process and what opportunities are there for public involvement in that process? The RI for the Quendall Terminals site has been completed. The property owners and EPA are currently in the process of preparing the FS risk assessment report. Once the FS report is completed, a proposed plan will be developed that identifies the steps to be taken to ensure that the Quendall Terminals site will be protective of human health and the environment. The proposed plan will be available for public review and comment. The EPA will review all public comments and issue a ROD that specifies the final cleanup and mitigation plan for the site. EPA currently anticipates that the ROD will be issued in 2016. EPA and the responsible parties will subsequently enter into an agreement for implementation of the proposed plan. A mitigation measure has been added in this FEIS indicating that if the issued EPA ROD is different than what is assumed in this FEIS, the applicant could be required to provide additional SEPA review (i.e., a supplement to the EIS or addendum to the EIS) to address any changes to the ROD (see Chapter 1 for a complete list of the final mitigation measures). Environmental Health 2 – What is the role of EPA in reviewing the proposed redevelopment actions to ensure consistency with cleanup decisions and institutional controls? How will the requirements of site cleanup decisions and institutional controls be adhered to during site redevelopment? Redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site would be coordinated with the ongoing cleanup/remediation process for the site, and would be conducted consistent with the requirements stipulated in the final cleanup/remediation plans selected and overseen by EPA, and any associated institutional controls. As part of the cleanup/remediation process, an Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) will be developed that will present a process for obtaining EPA approval if future excavations, utility installations, or other site disturbances are necessary after implementation of the final remedial action. The OMMP will ensure that site redevelopment activities would not adversely affect the final cleanup remedy for the site. Environmental Health 3 – What mitigation measures have been identified to minimize potential environmental health-related impacts associated with redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site? The environmental health-related mitigation measures listed in Chapter 1 of this FEIS are the final mitigation measures to address the potential environmental health-related impacts associated with proposed redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative. These measures are also contained in the Quendall Terminals Mixed-Use Development Mitigation Document. As indicated in the EIS Addendum, there are no significant unavoidable adverse environmental health-related impacts that cannot be mitigated. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-23 Chapter 2 2.3 Height, Bulk, and Scale Introduction The potential height, bulk, and scale impacts of the Quendall Terminals Project were analyzed in detail in the DEIS and EIS Addendum. 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. These analyses have been updated in this FEIS. Summary of Environmental Analysis DEIS The DEIS described existing land use conditions on and in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site, and provided a summary of the existing comprehensive plan designations, zoning classifications, and shoreline designations in these areas. Potential land use impacts associated with redevelopment under DEIS Alternative 1 and 2 were also analyzed in the DEIS. DEIS Alternative 1 included nine new mixed-use buildings, up to approximately 77 feet in height, from approximately 94,600 to 209,000 square feet in size on the site. DEIS Alternative 2 included nine new mixed-use buildings, up to approximately 67 feet in height, from approximately 77,000 to 112,800 square feet in size. 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. The DEIS indicated that under DEIS Alternative 1 and 2, proposed new buildings onsite were 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 property line were from 45 to 95 feet under DEIS Alternative 1, and 40 to 380 feet under DEIS Alternative 2 (including landscape screening, driveways and surface parking areas). Overall, the height, bulk, and scale of proposed buildings under the DEIS redevelopment alternatives 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 with the proposed redevelopment. (See DEIS Section 3.5, Land and Shoreline Use, and Section 3.6, Relationship to Plans, Policies, and Regulations, for details.) EIS Addendum Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative based on comments from EPA and the public, and continued coordination with and input from the City of Renton. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum included similar types of land Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-24 Chapter 2 uses and levels of development to DEIS Alternative 2. However, modifications were made in the Preferred Alternative to enhance the compatibility of proposed redevelopment 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). The Preferred Alternative includes ten new mixed-use buildings, up to approximately 64 feet in height, and from approximately 46,200 to 88,000 square feet in size on the site. Proposed Building SW4 located adjacent to the southwestern property line is four-stories high, buildings in the northern portion of the site are five-stories high and buildings in the central portion of the site are five to six stories high. A residential density of approximately 32 dwelling units per net acre is achieved under the Preferred Alternative. A proposed building setback of 40 to 200 feet (including landscape screening, driveways and surface parking areas) from the property line is provided between the proposed buildings and the adjacent residential development to the south. The EIS Addendum indicated that the proposed height, bulk, and scale of the Preferred Alternative was considered to generally be compatible with the existing urban development in the area and consistent with applicable City of Renton plans, policies, and regulations. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, no significant land use impacts were anticipated. (See EIS Addendum Section 4.5, Land and Shoreline Use, for details.) The Summary of Responses to Comments below provides an updated discussion of the potential height, bulk, and scale impacts of the Quendall Terminals Preferred Alternative, and the consistency of the Preferred Alternative with the site’s COR zoning. Summary of Responses to Comments A number of comments were received on the DEIS and EIS Addendum related to the height, bulk, and scale of the proposed Quendall Terminals Project. The primary comments/questions are summarized below, followed by responses (see Chapter 3 for responses to specific individual comments). For purposes of this updated discussion, the terms building height and building bulk are considered to be objective measures that can be expressed in feet (or stories) and square footage, respectively. The term development scale is considered to be a more subjective measure, relating to the overall building development size and character of a development as compared to adjacent development. Building Height, Bulk and Scale 1 – The height, bulk, and scale of proposed development on the Quendall Terminals site are not consistent with the character of the surrounding area. Compatibility with Existing/Planned Uses Proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than existing surrounding development in the site vicinity. Proposed individual buildings onsite would be greater in height and bulk than the residential buildings to the south, and similar or less tall and bulky than the office, indoor athletic fields, and multi-family buildings to the north, and proposed and existing buildings to the east. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-25 Chapter 2 The DEIS and EIS Addendum acknowledged that proposed individual buildings on the Quendall Terminals site would be greater in height and bulk than adjacent single-family residential buildings to the south (i.e., the up to three-story, 7,400 square-foot paired buildings in the Barbee Mill residential development). As a result, project mitigation measures have been included in the Preferred Alternative to enhance the compatibility of the proposed development with residential development to the south (i.e., reduction of the overall development level, modulation of building heights across the site, provision of building setbacks, modifications in building materials, and addition of landscaping; see the final list of mitigation measures in FEIS Chapter 1). Proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would be less tall and bulky than the existing indoor practice building to the north (the 115-foot high, approximately 200,000- square foot Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility), and generally similar in height and bulk to the existing approximately 4-story office building associated with the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, as well as existing and planned buildings to the east (proposed 60-foot high, approximately 122,000-square foot Hawk’s Landing buildings and existing up to four-story multifamily residential buildings to the east of I-405). While the proposed Hawk’s Landing development has yet to be constructed and site plan approval by the City of Renton expired on September 10, 2013, the master plan approval for the project is still in place (expires on September 10, 2015). No applications for building or construction permits have been submitted for Hawk’s Landing to date. Buildings in existing multifamily residential uses to the east of the site would be similar in height and bulk to certain individual buildings on the Quendall Terminals site (proposed buildings in the southern and northern portion of the site) and lower in height and bulk than other individual buildings proposed onsite (proposed buildings in the central portion of the site). Also, existing multifamily residential uses to the east are separated from the Quendall Terminals site by I-405. In summary, proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site 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., in the 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., in Barbee Mill). With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated (see FEIS Chapter 1 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). Consistency with City of Renton Plans, Policies, and Regulations The proposed Quendall Terminals Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the City of Renton’s vested plans, policies, and regulations, specifically the site’s COR land use designation and zoning classification. The COR designation was established to create compact, urban development in key areas of the City. According to the current Renton Comprehensive Plan, COR areas are intended to “provide opportunities for large-scale office, commercial, retail, and multi-family projects developed through a master plan and site plan process. COR sites are typically transitions from an industrial use to more intensive land use. The sites offer redevelopment opportunities along Lake Washington and/or the Cedar River.” Consistent with this description of COR areas, the Preferred Alternative would feature a mix of multifamily residential and commercial/retail uses on a site that was previously in industrial uses along the shores of Lake Washington. The Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-26 Chapter 2 applicant has submitted the following applications associated with the proposed redevelopment: Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan approval and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval from the City of Renton. The City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Section 4-2-120B establishes the development standards for the COR zone, including minimum and maximum density, as well as maximum building heights. Per RMC 4.2.120B, the minimum density is 30 dwelling units/acre, the maximum density is 50 dwelling units per acre (75 dwelling units per acre is allowed subject to Density Bonus Review), and the maximum building height is 10 stories and/or 125 feet. Proposed redevelopment of the site under the Preferred Alternative would be within the allowed density range (at a proposed density of approximately 32 du/net acre) and well below the maximum height (at a proposed maximum height of 64 feet) that is specified by the COR zoning. History of the COR Designation/Classification The history of the COR land use designation and zoning classification provides insight into the City of Renton’s intent to provide for higher density, urban development in key locations in the City. The COR zone was originally divided into three separate sub-zones, with different development standards for each. These COR sub-zones were established for three different large areas of the City, each of which had the potential for large and significant development. The Port Quendall Area (including the Quendall Terminals site, Barbee Mill property, and Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility property) was originally designated as COR 2. The City’s vision, identified by the policies of the COR land use designation, was a planned redevelopment of the entire area zoned COR 2. The result would be a coordinated effort to create a center with a mix of jobs, housing, and retail. However, segmented development of the parcels occurred, including the development of Barbee Mill on the southern edge of the COR 2 zone and the Seahawk’s Headquarters and Training Facility on the northern edge of the zone. As a result, the vision for a coordinated redevelopment in the Port Quendall Area has not been achieved. Recognizing the changes that have happened in the area over the past years, in 2011 the City processed a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and concurrent re-zone for the Barbee Mill property to change that property’s COR land use and zoning designation to Residential Medium Density (RMD) and Residential 10 (R-10) zoning. City staff recommended approval of the rezone to the R-10 zoning district because it would preserve the residential character of the Barbee Mill neighborhood. Under the COR zoning, individuals had the opportunity to convert their homes into an office or retail use. Barbee Mill was developed under the old COR 2 zoning designation, which at the time permitted a minimum density of 5 dwelling units per acre. Building Height, Bulk and Scale 2 – What measures have been incorporated into the Preferred Alternative to enhance the project’s compatibility with the surrounding area? The land use-related mitigation measures listed in Chapter 1 of this FEIS are the final mitigation measures to enhance the project’s compatibility with the surrounding area. These measures are also contained in the Quendall Terminals Mixed-Use Development Mitigation Document. As indicated in the EIS Addendum, redevelopment would result in the conversion of the site from a vacant, partially vegetated area to a new mixed-use development with an associated increase in building density and activity levels. The EIS Addendum concludes that there are no significant unavoidable adverse land use-related impacts that cannot be mitigated. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-27 Chapter 2 (Also see the mitigation measures in Chapter 1 of this EIS related to Aesthetics/Views.) 2.4 Aesthetics/Views Introduction The aesthetic/visual character of the proposed redevelopment on the Quendall Terminals site as viewed from surrounding areas was analyzed in detail in the DEIS and EIS Addendum. The aesthetics analysis in these documents focused on views from public areas and key vantage points in the site vicinity. Visual simulations to illustrate potential visual impacts were provided in the DEIS and EIS Addendum. Summary of Environmental Analysis DEIS As described in the DEIS, prior to cleanup and remediation activities, the current visual character of the site is generally open and partially vegetated, with several small isolated structures. With cleanup, and remediation activities, the exiting vegetation and structures will largely be removed and a minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area will be established. Redevelopment under the DEIS redevelopment alternatives would change the aesthetic character of the site from an open and partially vegetated area to a new mixed-use development. Under DEIS Alternative 1, nine buildings, up to seven-stories high, ranging from approximately 94,600 to 209,000 square feet would be constructed; under DEIS Alternative 2, nine buildings, up to six-stories high, ranging from approximately 77,000 to 112,800 square feet would be constructed. A visual analysis was conducted as part of the DEIS. 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. Visual simulations were prepared for both DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As shown in the DEIS visual simulations, redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would block or partially block views toward Lake Washington from certain viewpoints. View corridors that would provide opportunities for views of Lake Washington and Mercer Island would be provided under the DEIS redevelopment alternatives along the major east/west roadway (Street “B”) and the driveways and parking areas at the north and south ends of the site. In general, the more dense redevelopment under DEIS Alternative 1 would result in greater visual impacts than the less dense redevelopment under DEIS Alternative 2. (See DEIS Section 3.7, Aesthetics/Views, for details.) EIS Addendum Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative based in part on comments from the public, and continued coordination with and input from the City of Renton and EPA. The Preferred Alternative would include a level of redevelopment similar to DEIS Alternative 2; however, certain redevelopment assumptions were modified to enhance the Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-28 Chapter 2 visual character of the site, including increased view corridors, building height modulation, and building design features more compatible with surrounding development. Additional visual analysis was conducted for the EIS Addendum. Six key viewpoints (five from the DEIS and one new viewpoint along Lake Washington Boulevard N) were selected for the analysis of the Preferred Alternative. Following the methods used in the DEIS, visual simulations were prepared from each location for the Preferred Alternative. Under the Preferred Alternative, proposed mixed-use development would alter views to and through the site, similar to DEIS Alternative 2. However, the larger proposed view corridor along Street “B” (eight feet wider than the DEIS alternatives) and proposed building modulation would allow for greater views of Lake Washington and Mercer Island from certain viewpoints. Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential aesthetic and view- related impacts that would be similar to or less than the DEIS redevelopment alternatives; no further aesthetic or view impacts would be anticipated. In addition, the EIS Addendum provided further description of the methods used for the visual simulations of the Quendall Terminals Project and confirmation of the accuracy of these methods (see the response below for further details on the visual simulation methods). (See EIS Addendum Sections 3.2 and 4.6, Aesthetics/Views, for details.) Summary of Responses to Comments Several comments were received on the DEIS and EIS Addendum related to views to and through the Quendall Terminals site. The primary comments/questions are summarized below, followed by responses (see Chapter 3 for responses to specific individual comments). Aesthetics/Views 1 – How were the viewpoint locations selected for the visual analysis? As part of the visual analysis for the DEIS, viewpoints were selected based on the potential for the proposed site development to change the character of existing views to and through the site. These chosen viewpoints consisted of public locations where the site can be seen by many people, including public streets, sidewalks, Lake Washington, and a public park. A total of ten viewpoints were selected for the DEIS analysis as most representative of views towards the proposed development. A series of photographs were taken from each viewpoint to determine the angle that would most accurately represent the view from that location. Additional visual analysis was conducted for the EIS Addendum to depict changes in the proposal with the Preferred Alternative, and respond to comments that were received on the DEIS. Six key viewpoints were selected for analysis in the EIS Addendum which represent the views that were mentioned most frequently by commentators on the DEIS. Five of these viewpoints were carried forward from the DEIS; a new viewpoint was added along Lake Washington Boulevard N. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-29 Chapter 2 Aesthetics/Views 2 – The visual simulations do not appear to accurately portray the proposed height of the development. What process/methods were uses to create the visual simulations? Based on the selected viewpoints, visual simulations were prepared for DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, as well as the Preferred Alternative. For purposes of the visual analysis, preliminary building massing concepts were prepared for the simulations, based on information from the applicant and the applicant’s architect. These simulations are intended to represent building locations, massing and form, and do not represent the exact details of the building design or site landscaping. For comparison, the visual simulations also show dashed yellow lines to represent the maximum development envelope that could be built under the COR zoning classification and Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Urban designation1. These lines represent the site’s maximum building height and required building setbacks, and illustrate that the proposed redevelopment would be within the maximum-allowed development envelope under the zoning and SMP classifications. Photographs of existing views were taken from selected viewpoints using digital six and eight MegaPixel cameras with 35 mm lenses. To prepare the photographs for generating the visual simulations, digital files were set up in Adobe Photoshop to build the potential views from the selected viewpoints. The foreground of each photograph was then separated into different “layers” from the background. Based on building massing concepts, simulations of building heights and scale under the EIS Alternatives were generated for each viewpoint using Autodesk 3D Studio Max software. Camera locations for each simulation were registered using a combination of field measurements, existing terrain and survey data, and GPS information, adding six feet for the photographer’s height. Lens types and field of view settings were matched within the software to the type used for each viewpoint. Proportions of building massing concepts were adjusted to the proportions of the photographs that were taken. The resulting simulations, which represent the proposed building massing, were then inserted between the foreground and background layers of the prepared existing condition photographs. To address comments on the DEIS, the methods for the visual simulations were confirmed as part of the EIS Addendum process, including confirming the accuracy of the 3D model and the camera’s alignment and location. A perspective illustration was also created to demonstrate that the visual simulations accurately depict the views from the selected viewpoints (see EIS Addendum Figure 3.2-2). This illustration shows the view of the proposed development from Mercer Island (Viewpoint 1) and incorporates a 125-foot high scale, broken into 10-foot increments, that extends along the shoreline, through the center of the site, and along the site’s rear property line. As shown in the illustration, the massing of the buildings in the Barbee Mill development (approximately 36 feet high) coincide with floor three and four of the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, the proposed buildings depicted in the visual simulations for DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 and the Preferred Alternative are accurate. Aesthetics/Views 3 – What modifications were made to the Preferred Alternative to address comments on the DEIS regarding views and visual character? In response to several comments on the DEIS and continued coordination with the City of Renton and EPA, the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes a number of 1 Visual simulations prepared for the DEIS were based on the vested SMP (1983) in effect at the time of publication. Visual simulations for the EIS Addendum were based on the updated SMP (2011) and the comments received from EPA. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-30 Chapter 2 modifications that would enhance the visual character of the development and provide increased views through the site. Certain view corridors through the site would be larger under the Preferred Alternative than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. The proposed view corridor along Street “B” (the main east/west roadway) would be approximately 74 feet wide under the Preferred Alternative (approximately 8 feet wider than the corridor under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2). View corridors along the southern boundary of the site would also be maximized to the extent feasible, similar to under DEIS Alternative 2. These larger view corridors would allow for greater views through the site towards Lake Washington as compared to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. The Preferred Alternative would provide more building height modulation across the site than DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. The modulated building heights would locate the shortest buildings adjacent to the southern property line and the tallest buildings in the center of the site to minimize potential visual impacts on adjacent uses and increase view opportunities. Building SW4 in the southwestern portion of the site would be four-stories high, buildings in the northern portion of the site would be five-stories high, and those in the central portion of the site would be five- to six-stories high. Building materials under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those under the DEIS redevelopment alternatives; however, more brick, stucco, masonry, and precast concrete, and less metal siding would be incorporated into the Preferred Alternative to provide greater compatibility with buildings in the surrounding area (see EIS Addendum Figures 2-5 through 2- 9). The bases of the proposed parking structures are also proposed to have grids to support vines to create “green walls” to enhance the visual quality of these structures (see EIS Addendum Figures 2-10 for a representative section including the proposed “green walls”). The aesthetic/view-related mitigation measures listed in Chapter 1 of this FEIS are the final mitigation measures to address the potential aesthetic/views impacts with proposed redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative. These measures are also contained in the Quendall Terminals Mixed-Use Development Mitigation Document. As indicated in the EIS Addendum, there are no significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic/view impacts that cannot be mitigated. 2.5 Light and Glare Introduction The light and glare conditions associated with proposed redevelopment on the Quendall Terminals site were analyzed in detail in the DEIS and EIS Addendum. The light and glare analysis focused on new light sources on and in the vicinity of the site with proposed redevelopment and the potential for this light/glare to impact surrounding uses. Summary of Environmental Analysis DEIS The DEIS described existing light and glare conditions on the Quendall Terminals site and in the site vicinity, and analyzed potential light and glare impacts that could occur with proposed Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-31 Chapter 2 redevelopment under the DEIS redevelopment alternatives. The Quendall Terminals site is currently vacant and as such, redevelopment of the site would result in an increase in light and glare as compared to existing conditions. Lighting sources in the proposed Quendall Terminals mixed-use development would be similar to existing light sources in the site vicinity, and would include interior and exterior building lighting, street lighting, parking lot lighting, walkway lighting, and vehicular lighting. However, the lighting levels on the Quendall Terminals site would likely be higher than on adjacent properties due to the proposed level of redevelopment. Exterior building lighting, parking lot lighting, and pedestrian lighting would be directed downward and away from surrounding buildings to minimize potential impacts on surrounding uses. From the west (i.e., Mercer Island), lighting on the Quendall Terminals site would generally appear as a continuation of urban lighting associated with the City of Renton. New sources of glare on the site could include reflection from building façades and windows, and reflections from vehicle traffic. Specific glare impacts would depend upon the amount of reflective surfaces (glass, windows, metal) used for building construction. Reflectivity of glazing materials, as well as the use of shading devices, could be considered as part of the façade design in order to minimize potential glare impacts to surrounding uses. (See DEIS Section 3.7, Aesthetics/Views, for details.) EIS Addendum The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum would include new sources of light and glare, similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. In response to agency and public comments on the DEIS, additional lighting analysis was included in the EIS Addendum to assess potential impacts to critical areas (i.e., wetland and riparian habitat). Potential lighting impacts from proposed redevelopment on wildlife associated with wetland and riparian habitats on and adjacent to the site could occur, particularly during morning and evening hours during the winter. Although the topic has received increased attention, understanding the effects of artificial night lighting on ecological habitats is still limited. It is acknowledged that increases in ambient light can alter the behavioral ecology of a variety of organisms, which in turn may affect foraging, reproduction, migration, and communication. However, potential impacts from artificial lighting from the proposed development should be considered in the context of the urbanized setting in which it is located, as well as the longer term land use history of the Quendall Terminals site. Existing development currently extends to the north and south of the site; therefore, the impacts of artificial lighting from the proposed development would represent an incremental addition to lighting along the shoreline and would not be considered a significant impact. Furthermore, cleanup and remediation of the site would include the removal of existing wetland and upland communities (that have been impaired by past contamination) and capping of the site. Following remediation, wetland and riparian communities would be reestablished prior to redevelopment. Impacts to the developing wetland and riparian habitats from proposed redevelopment would be minimized with the project mitigation. As buffer areas develop, they would help to screen the wetlands from the redevelopment and associated lighting. (See EIS Addendum Section 4.2, Critical Areas, and Section 4.6, Aesthetics/Views, for details.) Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-32 Chapter 2 Summary of Responses to Comments Several comments were received on the DEIS and EIS Addendum related to light and glare conditions associated with the Quendall Terminals Project. The primary comments/questions are summarized below, followed by responses (see Chapter 3 for responses to specific individual comments). Light and Glare 1 – What mitigation measures have been identified to minimize potential light and glare impacts from proposed redevelopment on surrounding areas (i.e., Mercer Island) and wetland and riparian habitats? The following measures are included in the final list of mitigation measures to address potential light and glare impacts with proposed redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 1 of this FEIS for the complete list of mitigation measures). These measures are also contained in the Quendall Terminals Mixed-Use Development Mitigation Document. As indicated in the EIS Addendum, there are no significant unavoidable adverse light and glare impacts that cannot be mitigated. Exterior building lighting, parking lot lighting, and pedestrian lighting shall be directed downward and away from surrounding buildings, properties and the shoreline of Lake Washington to minimize the impacts to adjacent uses and fish. The proposed redevelopment shall include design elements to minimize the potential adverse effects of artificial lighting on wetland, shoreline and riparian habitats, and adjacent properties. These elements shall include directing lighting downward and away from these habitats and adjacent properties, and shall include shielding of lights, use of low-pressure sodium lights, and/or minimizing the use of reflective glazing materials in building design, as feasible. 2.6 Archaeological and Cultural Resources Introduction In response to comments on the DEIS from the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), an archaeological and cultural resources assessment was included in the EIS Addendum. This assessment described the existing archaeological and cultural resource conditions on and in the vicinity of the site; evaluated potential cultural resource impacts that could occur with construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative; and, identified appropriate mitigation measures to address potential impacts. Summary of Environmental Analysis EIS Addendum A detailed description of the history of the Quendall Terminals site was provided in the EIS Addendum, including: the history of geographic features in the site vicinity; historic uses of the site dating back to the early 1900s; and, previous cultural resource investigations of the site and site vicinity. Numerous named geographic features are located in the site area and include Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-33 Chapter 2 descriptive names for geographic features, resource procurement sites and villages. As described in the EIS Addendum, the area was named May Creek for an early homesteader, and since the early 1900s has been historically used for industrial uses, including: a shingle mill; creosote processing; diesel, crude and waste oil storage; and, log sorting and storage. An earlier cultural resource investigation of the site and surrounding area was conducted in 1997. Based on shovel tests conducted during the investigation, no cultural deposits were found. Due to the type and intensity of historic modification of the Quendall Terminals site, intact pre- contact deposits would not be expected to be at or near the surface and intact historic-era deposits would also not be expected to be visible near the surface. However, late historic-era deposits related to creosote production, the lumber industry, and railroads are likely to be present onsite. As part of the Quendall Terminals Project, construction activities that would result in excavations into the possible sediment cap (i.e., construction of deep building supports and excavations for utilities) could result in the inadvertent discovery of cultural resources. While it is unlikely that cultural resources would be encountered, a monitoring plan and inadvertent discovery plan would be prepared for the Preferred Alternative. In addition, proposed institutional controls would prevent the alteration of the possible sediment cap during site redevelopment, which would further limit the possibility of inadvertent encounters with potential cultural resources. As a result, no significant impacts to cultural resources would be anticipated with proposed redevelopment. (See EIS Addendum Section 4.9, Cultural Resources, and Appendix F for details.) Summary of Responses to Comments Several comments were received on the DEIS and EIS Addendum related to archaeological and cultural resources. The primary comments/questions are summarized below, followed by responses (see Chapter 3 for responses to specific individual comments). Archaeological and Cultural Resources 1 – What potential cultural resources could be encountered on the site during redevelopment activities? Based on background information, the areas of the site with higher probability to contain intact cultural resources include the margins of the old channels of May Creek, the delta of the 1920 channel, the margins of the 1920 marsh, and areas adjacent to the 1864 shoreline (see EIS Addendum Appendix F for additional information on these locations). As described in the EIS Addendum, cultural deposits in these locations could include items or features associated with the following: Pre-contact fisheries (weirs, traps, smokehouses, and drying racks); Pre-contact habitation (fire-modified rock, charcoal, post molds, depressions, lithic debitage – sharp-edged waste material left over from stone tool creation, and formal processing and hunting tools); and, Historic industry (wharves, piers, docks, pilings, and machinery), historic habitation (house foundations and household refuse), and/or historic transportation (rail line, trestles, road bed, and bridge foundations). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-34 Chapter 2 Archaeological and Cultural Resources 2 – What measures are identified to mitigate the potential impacts on cultural resources? The archaeological/cultural resource-related mitigation measures listed in Chapter 1 of this FEIS are the final mitigation measures to address the potential impacts on archaeological and cultural resources with proposed redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative. These measures are also contained in the Quendall Terminals Mixed-Use Development Mitigation Document. As indicated in the EIS Addendum, there are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts on archaeological and cultural resources that cannot be mitigated. 2.7 Construction Impacts Introduction Potential construction-related impacts associated with development of the Quendall Terminals site were analyzed as part of the DEIS and EIS Addendum. The analysis focused on the potential impacts including emissions, dust, and noise. Summary of Environmental Analysis DEIS The DEIS analyzed potential construction-related impacts that would occur with the development of DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 under Section 3.5, Land and Shoreline Use. As indicated in the DEIS, site preparation and construction would result in temporary construction- related impacts to adjacent land uses over the full build-out period, including emissions from construction vehicles and equipment; increased dust associated with construction activities; increased noise levels associated with construction activities; increased vibration associated with construction (including the potential installation of piles); and, increased traffic associated with construction vehicles and workers. Construction activities were anticipated to occur incrementally over full build-out of the site and would move around the site, which would result in temporary impacts to adjacent land uses when construction is proximate to those areas. Due to the temporary nature of construction and required compliance with City of Renton construction code regulations, no significant impacts would be anticipated. EIS Addendum Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative based on comments from EPA and the public, and continued coordination and input from the City of Renton. Due to the similar levels of redevelopment, construction-related impacts under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar to those analyzed under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. No significant construction-related impacts would be anticipated due to the temporary nature of construction and the required compliance with City of Renton construction regulations. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 2-35 Chapter 2 Summary of Responses to Comments Several comments were received on the DEIS and EIS Addendum associated with potential construction-related impacts, specifically dust, other air emissions and noise impacts. The primary comment is summarized below, followed by a response (see Chapter 3 for responses to specific individual comments). Construction Impacts 1 – Construction activities associated with the Quendall Terminals Project could result in potential impacts to surrounding uses. What measures have been identified to minimize potential construction-related impacts associated with dust, other air emissions, and noise? The following new measures are included in the final list of mitigation measures to address potential construction-related impacts (i.e., related to air quality and noise) with proposed redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 1 of this FEIS for the complete list of mitigation measures). These measures are also contained in the Quendall Terminals Mixed- Use Development Mitigation Document. There are no significant unavoidable adverse construction-related impacts that cannot be mitigated. Air Quality Site development and construction activities shall comply with the applicable Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) regulations regarding demolition activities and fugitive dust emissions. If approved by the EPA, wetting of exposed soils, covering or wetting transported earth materials, washing of truck tires and undercarriages prior to travel on public streets, and prompt cleanup of any materials tracked or spilled onto public streets shall be provided. The EPA cleanup/remediation process and associated institutional control requirements shall ensure that unacceptable exposures to contaminated soils/dust and vapors shall not occur during or following construction. An Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) shall be implemented to prevent the excavation of soils, installation of utilities and other site disturbances without prior EPA approval. Noise Per the City of Renton’s construction standards related to permitted hours of work (RMC 4-4-030C), commercial and multifamily construction activities within 300 feet of residential areas shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours of 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM and no work shall be permitted on Sundays. The City of Renton Development Services Director shall be required to approve any work outside of these construction hours. Noise from construction shall be governed by the timing restrictions and the noise limits included in the King County noise code requirements (KCC Section 12.88.040). This rule defines maximum permissible sound levels based on the zoning of the source and receiving properties and sets maximum levels and durations of allowable daytime construction noise. Chapter 3 COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-1 Chapter 3 CHAPTER 3 COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES This chapter of the Final EIS (FEIS) contains comments received on the Draft EIS (DEIS) and EIS Addendum, and provides responses to the comments on both of these documents. A total of 75 letters were received during the comment period on the DEIS and 8 people commented at the DEIS public hearing held on January 4, 2011. A total of 12 letters were received during the comment period on the EIS Addendum. Each letter and the transcript of the public meeting are included in this section of the FEIS. Comment letters/numbers appear in the margins of the letters/transcript commentary and are cross-referenced to the corresponding responses. Responses are provided directly after each letter/transcript commentary. Expressions of opinions, subjective statements, and positions for or against the Proposed Action and EIS Alternatives are acknowledged without further comments pursuant to WAC 197-11-560. The following comments were received on the Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum: EIS Addendum Comment Letters Page EIS Addendum Letter 1: Mike Battin 3-4 EIS Addendum Letter 2: Robert and Mary Becker 3-6 EIS Addendum Letter 3: Richard and Kathleen Bergquist 3-20 EIS Addendum Letter 4: John Hansen 3-29 EIS Addendum Letter 5: Marleen Mandt 3-33 EIS Addendum Letter 6: Cyrus McNeely (email) 3-35 EIS Addendum Letter 7: Cyrus McNeely (letter) 3-37 EIS Addendum Letter 8: Michael Mullinaux 3-39 EIS Addendum Letter 9: Larry Reymann 3-41 EIS Addendum Letter 10: Chelsea Ryberg 3-46 EIS Addendum Letter 11: Paul Seigmund 3-52 EIS Addendum Letter 12: Anne Woodley 3-76 The following comments were received on the Quendall Terminals DEIS: DEIS Comment Letters Page DEIS Letter 1: City of Mercer Island 3-80 DEIS Letter 2: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 3-83 DEIS Letter 3: South End Gives Back 3-89 DEIS Letter 4: United States Environmental Protection Agency (letter 1) 3-92 DEIS Letter 5: United States Environmental Protection Agency (letter 2) 3-95 DEIS Letter 6: Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 3-101 DEIS Letter 7: Washington State Department of Ecology (email) 3-104 DEIS Letter 8: Washington State Department of Ecology (letter) 3-107 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-2 Chapter 3 DEIS Letter 9: Washington State Department of Transportation 3-110 DEIS Letter 10: Rajendra Agrawaal 3-114 DEIS Letter 11: Ricardo and Maria Antezana (email) 3-116 DEIS Letter 12: Ricardo and Maria Antezana (letter) 3-118 DEIS Letter 13: Linda Baker 3-139 DEIS Letter 14: Tom Baker 3-143 DEIS Letter 15: Robert and Mary Becker (letter 1) 3-146 DEIS Letter 16: Robert and Mary Becker (letter 2) 3-158 DEIS Letter 17: Aaron Belenky 3-169 DEIS Letter 18: Richard and Kathleen Bergquist 3-173 DEIS Letter 19: Larry Borgeson 3-183 DEIS Letter 20: Larry and Linda Borgeson 3-185 DEIS Letter 21: Linda Borgeson 3-193 DEIS Letter 22: Tony Boydston 3-205 DEIS Letter 23: Ronald and Vanessa Brazg 3-207 DEIS Letter 24: Mike Cero 3-218 DEIS Letter 25: Christine Chen (email) 3-221 DEIS Letter 26: Christine Chen (letter) 3-224 DEIS Letter 27: Victor Chiu 3-235 DEIS Letter 28: Michael Christ 3-237 DEIS Letter 29: Ronald Corbell 3-239 DEIS Letter 30: Jon and Marilyn Danielson 3-241 DEIS Letter 31: Nancy Denney 3-245 DEIS Letter 32: Elisabeth Durr 3-248 DEIS Letter 33: Richard Ferry 3-251 DEIS Letter 34: Roy and Joann Francis 3-255 DEIS Letter 35: Mike and Sharon Glenn 3-266 DEIS Letter 36: John and Diane Haines 3-269 DEIS Letter 37: Mark Hancock 3-271 DEIS Letter 38: John Hansen 3-273 DEIS Letter 39: Lawrence Hard 3-276 DEIS Letter 40: Gwendolyn High 3-278 DEIS Letter 41: Chuck and Sylvia Holden 3-280 DEIS Letter 42: Diane Jackson 3-283 DEIS Letter 43: Paul and Terri Leland 3-285 DEIS Letter 44: Amy Leitz Roberts 3-296 DEIS Letter 45: Bruce MacCaul 3-298 DEIS Letter 46: Marylouise MacCaul 3-309 DEIS Letter 47: Marleen Mandt 3-313 DEIS Letter 48: Cyrus McNeely 3-317 DEIS Letter 49: Susan Miller 3-319 DEIS Letter 50: Dan Mitzel 3-322 DEIS Letter 51: Ross and Ava Ohashi 3-332 DEIS Letter 52: Suzanne and Donald Orehek 3-334 DEIS Letter 53: Roger Pearce 3-345 DEIS Letter 54: Yvonne and Gary Pipkin (email 1) 3-353 DEIS Letter 55: Yvonne and Gary Pipkin (email 2) 3-355 DEIS Letter 56: Yvonne and Gary Pipkin (letter) 3-357 DEIS Letter 57: Kevin Poole 3-359 DEIS Letter 58: Keith Preszler 3-364 DEIS Letter 59: Len and Pat Reid 3-368 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-3 Chapter 3 DEIS Letter 60: Larry Reymann 3-375 DEIS Letter 61: Darius Richards 3-378 DEIS Letter 62: Tim Riley 3-380 DEIS Letter 63: Chelsea Ryberg 3-382 DEIS Letter 64: Gary and Janet Sanford 3-386 DEIS Letter 65: Sally Scott 3-397 DEIS Letter 66: Paul Siegmund 3-399 DEIS Letter 67: Susan Siegmund 3-422 DEIS Letter 68: Winnie and Yura Sihon 3-433 DEIS Letter 69: Susan Stow 3-435 DEIS Letter 70: Charles and Rebecca Taylor 3-437 DEIS Letter 71: Pavy Thao 3-445 DEIS Letter 72: Robert and Sonya Tobeck 3-448 DEIS Letter 73: Farrell Wilson and Jonell Bitney-Wilson 3-450 DEIS Letter 74: Charles Wittmann 3-462 DEIS Letter 75: Anne Woodley 3-465 DEIS Letter 76: Sheng-Chi Wu 3-468 DEIS Public Hearing Commentaries: Page DEIS Commentary 1: Carol O’Connell 3-511 DEIS Commentary 2: Gary Pipkin 3-513 DEIS Commentary 3: Len Reid 3-515 DEIS Commentary 4: Ron Nicol 3-517 DEIS Commentary 5: Bob Becker 3-520 DEIS Commentary 6: Paul Seigmund 3-523 DEIS Commentary 7: Rich Wagner 3-528 DEIS Commentary 8: Larry Reymann 3-530 EIS ADDENDUM COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES From: Mike Battin [mbattin@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 6:50 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE: Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Availability Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Vanessa‐ Not a problem, here is the revised signature line. “And not to mention the mile‐long backup on Lake Wash @ Seahawks drive blvd between 7:50 and 8:15 AM weekdays. Adding another 200 vehicles to that mess is not acceptable. Who is reviewing this?” Thanks, Mike Mike Battin Chief Operating Officer PACSHealth, LLC 3410 Park Av. North Renton, WA 98056 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-5 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments RESPONSE TO EIS ADDENDUM LETTER 1 Mike Battin 1. The queuing analysis in the EIS Addendum presented a detailed summary of vehicle queuing at key site access intersections and along Lake Washington Boulevard under various scenarios for the 2015 project build-out year assumed in that document. Implementation of project traffic mitigation and/or planned I-405 Improvements at the NE 44th Street interchange would alleviate existing and future vehicle queuing issues in the interchange vicinity, reducing the forecasted queuing by 50 percent or more (southbound queues for left turns on Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard would be reduced to approximately 200 feet while eastbound queues along Lake Washington Boulevard would be reduced to approximately 250 feet or less and eliminating the forecasted blocking of adjacent intersections (see FEIS Figure 2-1 for a depiction of the traffic movements at this intersection). With the project mitigation, all study intersections in the I-405/44th Street interchange vicinity would operate at an acceptable LOS E or better (see EIS Addendum Section 3.4, Transportation, and Appendix E for details). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-11 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments RESPONSES TO EIS ADDENDUM LETTER 2 Robert and Mary Becker 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum represent a comprehensive review of the transportation impacts of existing and future traffic operations in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site. These analyses specifically accounted for general and discrete pipeline development (including Barbee Mill, Hawks Landing and the Kennydale Apartments); have been updated to account for peak utilization of the Seahawks Training Facility; consider regional growth and traffic demand in the vicinity with and without future planned widening of I-405; and, reflect the latest available regional forecasts of population and employment levels throughout the Puget Sound. The proposed primary site access would be via the Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street intersection. Access via N 43rd Street would also be provided, with an estimated 25 percent of all project traffic using this access. As shown in the DEIS and EIS Addendum, with this estimated distribution of project traffic, no substantial traffic operational impacts are anticipated at the existing Barbee Mill access (N 43rd Street). Subsequent to the issuance of the EIS Addendum, the City of Renton completed the Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton (October 2014) and determined that the Quendall Terminals Project should install a traffic signal at the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection as opposed to the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. If the traffic signal and configuration of N 43rd Street have not been constructed prior to WSDOT improvements at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, the City will consider changing the location of this signal to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard. An engineering study will be completed at that time to support the determination of the location for the installation of the traffic signal at either the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection or the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection (see FEIS Appendix C for details). As noted in EIS Addendum Table 3.4-4, significant vehicle queuing of 800 feet or more is estimated to only occur on Ripley Lane as a result of additional project traffic without any project mitigation for the 2015 build-out assumed in that document. With implementation of the identified project traffic mitigation, general traffic operations and vehicle queuing are estimated to improve substantially and fall within acceptable traffic operational conditions (i.e., southbound queues for left turns on Ripley Lane would be reduced to approximately 200 feet and eastbound queues along Lake Washington Boulevard would be reduced to approximately 250 feet or less -- no adjacent intersections would be blocked; see FEIS Figure 2-1 for a depiction of the traffic movements at this intersection). See Table 2-2 for a summary of vehicle queues at the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). Mitigation measures identified in this FEIS include transportation improvements that would be required to mitigate project traffic impacts with or without I-405 Improvements. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-12 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments Without any I-405 Improvements, significant arterial and intersection improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard, at site access intersections, and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramp junctions would be required to be completed as part of the project (see FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). 3. Accessing the Quendall Terminals site through the Barbee Mill neighborhood, as an alternative to travelling along Lake Washington Boulevard, represents approximately 800 lineal feet between N 41st Street and N 43rd Street. It is not expected that using a circuitous route through the Barbee Mill neighborhood would be a better choice for such a short distance. The traffic operational analysis conducted for the DEIS and EIS Addendum (see Appendices H and E to those documents, respectively) concluded that with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures and/or I-405 Improvements, forecasted LOS on nearby intersections and arterials would not result in any significant adverse traffic impacts along Lake Washington Boulevard. 4. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum assumed two transportation scenarios: 1) future development of the Quendall Terminals site with the NE 44th Street/I-405 Improvements, and 2) future development without the NE 44th Street/I-405 Improvements. The assumptions for WSDOT improvements under the “with I-405 Improvements” scenario are still valid. However, WSDOT is presently considering phasing of the improvements. In 2015 (the assumed project build out year in the DEIS and EIS Addendum), without implementation of the project mitigation, and without the I-405 improvements, operations at three of the study intersections would be unacceptable (LOS F). Project mitigation measures were identified for both the with and without I-405 improvements scenarios. As shown in EIS Addendum Table 3.4-6 and FEIS Table 2-1, with implementation of the project mitigation, LOS would improve to acceptable levels (LOS E or better) at all of the NE 44th Street/ I-405 interchange system intersections. Table 2-5 in this FEIS shows that delay experienced at these intersections would also substantially improve with implementation of project mitigation (at all studied intersections, future delays of greater than 10 minutes with no project mitigation would be reduced to one minute or less with project mitigation). See FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of the mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 5. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum did not recommend routing any project traffic to the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange system. The analyses indicated that without any I-405 Improvements by WSDOT or intersection improvements at the ramp junctions at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, project-generated traffic to/from the south of the project site is forecast to shift to access the freeway at the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange as well as other parallel routes east and west of I-405 during peak commute periods. This potential diversion of traffic was determined to have no significant adverse traffic impacts on the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor or key intersections that would serve these diverted trips via Burnett Avenue N and N 30th Street (see DEIS Appendix H and EIS Addendum Appendix E for details). Implementation of project mitigation measures at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange would result in a substantial reduction in overall vehicle delay and vehicle queuing, and would address the potential diversion of project-related trips. Traffic operations at the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange would operate at LOS B/C with the mitigation measures identified for the Preferred Alternative (see FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). Also see FEIS Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-13 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation2-10) for additional analysis of the Park Avenue N corridor and the N 30th Street/I-405 ramps and Table 2-3 for a summary of the LOS with project mitigation. 6. Your comments are noted for the record. The EIS Addendum does not compare the height, bulk, and scale of the proposed Quendall Terminals Project to the Carillon Point project in the City of Kirkland. As discussed in FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page2-24), it is acknowledged that the overall scale of the proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site would be greater than surrounding development. The height and bulk of individual buildings in the proposed development would be greater than buildings in certain surrounding development in the site vicinity (i.e., adjacent single-family residential buildings in the Barbee Mill residential development to the south). However, the proposed individual buildings would generally be similar in height and bulk to buildings in the existing Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility to the north (the indoor field), proposed Hawk’s Landing development to the east, and commercial and multifamily residential areas further to the east, beyond I-405. Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative based on comments on the DEIS, and continued coordination with and input from EPA and the City of Renton. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes modifications to enhance the compatibility of proposed redevelopment 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). As part of the proposed building modulation, Building SW4 located adjacent to the southwestern property line would be four stories high, buildings in the northern portion of the site would be five stories high and buildings in the central portion of the site would be five to six stories high (see FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). The site’s COR land use designation and zoning classification was established with the intent to create compact, urban development in certain locations in the City. The City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Section 4-2-120B establishes the development standards for the COR zone, including minimum and maximum residential density, as well as maximum building heights. Per RMC 4-2-120B, the minimum density is 30 dwelling units/acre, the maximum density is 50 dwelling units per acre, and the maximum building height is 10 stories and/or 125 feet. Mixed-use development under the Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the intent of the COR land use designation and would be within the density range, and well below the building height limit allowed by the COR zoning. 7. Please see the response to Comment 6 in this letter and FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-23 through 2-27). It is acknowledged that buildings in the central portion of the site would be approximately two times the height of buildings in the Barbee Mill development to the south. At a maximum height of approximately 64 feet, these buildings would be approximately half as tall as the approximately 115-foot tall indoor practice field building at the Seahawks Training Facility. Proposed Building SW4 in the southwestern portion of the site would be four- stories in height, similar to buildings in Barbee Mill. Mitigation measures have been included in the Preferred Alternative to enhance the compatibility of the proposed Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-14 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments development with surrounding residential development (i.e., reduction of the overall development level, modulation of building heights across the site, provision of building setbacks, modifications in building materials, and addition of landscaping). With implementation of these measures, no significant land use impact would be expected. 8. Your comment is noted for the record. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24). It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than existing surrounding development in the site vicinity. Proposed individual buildings onsite would be greater in height and bulk than the residential buildings to the south, and similar or less tall and bulky than the office, indoor athletic fields and multi-family buildings to the north and proposed and existing buildings to the east 9. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 6 in this letter. The proposed density of the Quendall Terminals Project is consistent with the site’s COR land use designation policies and zoning classification standards. No decisions have been made on the project to date. The EIS is intended to be a tool to aid the City and other regulators in their decision-making process. 10. Your comment is noted for the record. RMC Section 4-2-120B establishes the development standards for the COR zone, including minimum and maximum residential density standards. These standards reflect the pattern of development that the City envisions for the site. Proposed redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would be within the COR residential density range. 11. As described in Chapter 2 of the EIS Addendum and illustrated in EIS Addendum Figures 2-5 through 2-10, the proposed parking garages would include architectural elements to enhance the aesthetic appeal of these structures. Street-level, under- building parking areas would be concealed from sidewalks and streets by retail uses along certain facades. Where this parking would extend to the exterior of the building in other areas, elements such as architectural façade components, trellises, berms, and landscaping would be used for screening. Ground-level façades would be defined by a variety of materials, including brick, stone, and stained concrete, and the materials would be varied to provide increased visual interest. The bases of the parking structures would also have grillwork to support vines to create “green walls.” Other mitigation measures that have been identified for the Preferred Alternative that could further enhance the aesthetic character of the ground level of the proposed buildings, include: 1) reducing the amount of required parking so that parking could be set back from the exterior of the buildings, allowing other uses to occupy these areas, and 2) providing vertical and/or horizontal modulation along the lake side of the structures to break up the larger structures (see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas, Aesthetics/Views Response 3 – page 2-30, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1- 20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). Lighting systems would be provided inside and outside of the proposed under-building parking structures. This lighting would be visible from surrounding areas, including Mercer Island. However, the proposed exterior lighting would be directed downward and away from surrounding buildings, properties, and Lake Washington to minimize impacts to adjacent uses and the shoreline of Lake Washington (see FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1- 8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-15 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments 12. As part of the Preferred Alternative, modifications were made to enhance the compatibility of the proposed redevelopment with surrounding uses, particularly residential uses to the south, including Barbee Mill. Proposed Building SW4 near the southwestern boundary of the site would be four stories high, setback approximately 100 feet from the property line (at its nearest point) to provide a buffer between the site and surrounding uses; landscape screening would also be provided within this area. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details. 13. Your comments regarding DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 are noted for the record. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes modifications to enhance the compatibility of proposed redevelopment 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). As part of the proposed building modulation, Building SW4 located adjacent to the southwestern property line would be four stories high. The setbacks referenced in this comment are measured to the nearest structure. In the case of the setbacks from the southern property line under the Preferred Alternative, the 40-foot setback would be from the 1-story parking garage to the property line in the southeastern portion of the site, and the 200-foot setback from a portion of the four-story residential Building SW4 to the property line in the southwestern portion of the site. While setbacks in this site area would be greater under DEIS Alternatives 2, taller buildings (up to six-stories high) would be closer to the southern property line than under the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, the actual impacts on the adjacent Barbee Mill development would result from a combination of the proposed setbacks and the heights of the buildings. 14. The Preferred Alternative includes mitigations measures to address potential light and glare impacts on surrounding uses, including the following: Exterior building lighting, parking lot lighting, and pedestrian lighting shall be directed downward and away from adjacent buildings, properties, and the shoreline of Lake Washington to minimize impacts to adjacent uses and fish. Reflectivity of glazing materials, as well as the use of shading devices, shall be considered as part of the façade design in order to minimize the potential glare impacts to surrounding uses. (See FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative.) 15. Your comment is noted for the record. In February 2010, the City of Renton determined that they had received a complete application for proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site. Pursuant to RMC 4.8, the City of Renton was required to review and process the application. Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS and receipt of comments from EPA on the DEIS, the City placed SEPA review of the project on hold subject to further feedback from EPA on the environmental baseline (post-remediation conditions) assumptions. In March 2012, EPA indicated that the environmental baseline assumptions represented in the DEIS were reasonable given the expected general outcome of the Record of Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-16 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments Decision (ROD), with an increase of the minimum shoreline setback area to 100 feet from the lake edge (see DEIS Letter 4). The Preferred Alternative incorporates this minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area. Final, detailed plans for the re-establishment of wetlands and their buffers will be developed in coordination with EPA as part of the remediation process, prior to redevelopment. EPA will be responsible for review and approval of the proposed wetland replacement plan for the site through a separate process associated with site cleanup and remediation. A new mitigation measure has been added to this FEIS indicating that in the event that the ROD issued by EPA is different than what is assumed for this EIS, the City reviewing official shall determine whether the applicant shall be required to prepare additional SEPA review for the project (see Environmental Health mitigation measure C10 in FEIS Chapter 1). See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Environmental Health – page 2- 19) for details on the relationship between the site cleanup/remediation and proposed redevelopment. 16. EPA will ensure that contaminants that are present in site soils and groundwater from past industrial operations will not be released into the air and water during or following site cleanup/remediation. The EPA cleanup/remediation process for the site and associated institutional control requirements will ensure that unacceptable exposures to contaminated soils/dust and vapors will not occur during or following construction. An Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) will be implemented to prevent the excavation of soils, installation of utilities, and other site disturbances without prior EPA approval. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Environmental Health – page2- 19) for details on the relationship between the site cleanup/remediation and proposed redevelopment. 17. The wetland delineation that was included in the DEIS was conducted according to the methods defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Corps 2008), and DOE’s Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (DOE 1997). The method for delineating wetlands is based on the presence of three parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Hydrophytic vegetation is “the macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present.” Hydric soils are “formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.” Wetland hydrology “encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface for a sufficient duration during the growing season” (DOE 1997). A total of 21 data plots were sampled over the approximately 21-acre site. Sample plots were identified numerically as wetland or upland plots. Vegetation, soils, and hydrology information were collected at each of the plots, recorded on field data sheets, and photographed. Wetland boundaries were determined based upon sample plot data and visual observations of each wetland. Wetland locations and boundaries were flagged and subsequently surveyed by a professional surveyor to establish and verify their location and size. EPA has reviewed the wetland delineation report (Anchor QEA 2009) Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-17 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments on file at the City of Renton, and had no comments on the delineated wetland boundaries. As noted in the wetland delineation report, there is a network of roads at the Quendall Terminals site, with much of the area previously used for log sorting and storage, resulting in compacted soil on much of the site. Water ponds in these areas due to the compacted soil, but wetland data plots collected in these areas did not contain wetland characteristics for all three parameters. Therefore, although these areas are wet much of the time, they do not meet the parameters noted above to be considered wetlands. 18. Final, detailed plans for the re-establishment of wetlands and their buffers onsite will be developed in accordance with EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement as part of the remediation process, prior to proposed redevelopment. The review and approval of the wetland replacement plan will be EPA’s responsibility through a separate process. The retention/re-establishment of wetland area adjacent to Wetland J on the east side of Seahawks Way or Ripley Lane is intended to replace current wetland areas with a wider range of wetland function and value. New wetland areas adjacent to Wetland J would provide an improvement to habitat quality and overall function from that provided by existing wetlands, which are currently compromised by the presence of soil and water contamination. Habitat function at the expanded Wetland J would also benefit from improved structure and diversity, including emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested habitats. The commentators refer to a “drainage ditch” as part of the mitigation. While some stormwater runoff serves as a source of hydrology to the stream, Wetland J is a depressional wetland with emergent and scrub-shrub habitat. The expansion of Wetland J is intended to compensate for impacts to on-site wetlands not associated with Lake Washington (Wetlands B, C, E, and G) and is expected to replace functions lost as part of remediation activities (prior to any redevelopment). The expansion of Wetland J would diversify and improve wetland habitat on this part of the site over the current mix of invasive species in the wetland buffer, primarily Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass. 19. DEIS Section 3.2, Critical Areas, and Appendix E describe the existing, pre-remediation conditions of the site, which includes a mosaic of herbaceous, shrub, forest patches, and several wetland areas, that have developed since the cessation of log sorting activities on the site. It is acknowledged that the existing vegetation cover provides some habitat for a variety of wildlife species. However, these habitats are relatively young and include invasive species. In addition, existing water quality within the wetlands currently impairs its suitability as habitat for aquatic invertebrates. Thus, the value of the habitats that are present on the site, prior to remediation, is considered limited. In addition, as discussed in DEIS Section 3.2, Critical Areas, and Appendix E, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2009; also 2012) Priority Habitats and Species database shows no documented occurrences of priority species or habitats on the site or in the immediate vicinity, other than the presence of wetlands onsite along the lakeshore and listed fish species offsite within Lake Washington to the west and May Creek to the south. Bald eagles (a state sensitive species) may occasionally perch on the site, but the nearest known breeding site occurs on Mercer Island approximately one mile to the west, across Lake Washington. Although indicated as potentially occurring within King County by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012), the gray wolf has not been consistently or reliably documented within King County, particularly within the Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-18 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments urbanized Puget Sound lowlands. Known or suspected occurrences of these wolves in Washington center on more remote, forested habitats in the north Cascades, and none have been recorded anywhere near the project site. Ospreys are known to occur in the area, and may use nest platforms constructed along the south end of the Seahawks Training Facility to the north and near the mouth of May Creek on the old Barbee Mill property to the south. DEIS Section 3.2, Critical Areas, and Appendix E evaluated the impacts of the proposed project on wildlife habitat. As described in that document, all of the existing vegetation communities would be removed as part of the cleanup/remediation plan, prior to site development. EPA will evaluate the impacts of vegetation removal and associated wildlife/habitat impacts due cleanup/remediation activities, as well as the re- establishment of shoreline habitat, through a separate review process. Based on the cleanup/remediation process to date, the final plan could include capping of the site area west of Lake Washington Boulevard, and re-establishment/expansion of wetland and upland habitat along the shoreline of the lake, depending on the outcome of the EPA ROD or any NRD settlement. Thus, the presumed existing/baseline condition for impact analysis in the EIS is post-remediation, and the majority of the site is expected to consist of bare soil, except along the Lake Washington shore, where a shoreline restoration plan will be implemented, in accordance with EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement. The upland portion of the Main Property could be temporarily re-vegetated via seeding of herbaceous species following remediation to prevent erosion and sedimentation, depending on the anticipated timing of redevelopment. Consequently, redevelopment of the upland areas onsite is not expected to remove significant habitat features or displace wildlife from these areas. Some disturbance of the re-vegetated shoreline habitat from human and construction activity could occur during construction. However, this vegetation would likely be relatively recently established and initially provide limited habitat during this period. The Preferred Alternative discussed in the EIS Addendum would include a somewhat larger natural area along the shore of Lake Washington than DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, resulting in slightly less impact to wetland and wildlife habitat. Overall, impacts from human disturbance would not differ significantly from Alternatives 1 and 2, however. 20. As described in Chapter 2 of the EIS Addendum, the reduction in open space area associated with the Preferred Alternative is primarily related to the elimination of one of the semi-private courtyard areas that was located above the parking structures under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. This courtyard area was removed in order to accommodate additional building area proximate to Lake Washington and lower buildings elsewhere on the site. As noted in EIS Addendum Section 4.7, Parks and Recreation, while the Preferred Alternative would include less overall open space than DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 due to the elimination of a semi-private courtyard area, it would provide slightly more natural open space than the DEIS redevelopment alternatives (approximately 3.7 acres of “Natural Public Open Space Areas” under the Preferred Alternative versus 3.4 to 3.5 acres under the DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively). Also, approximately 1.8 acres of indoor and/or outdoor area would be provided onsite for active recreation under the Preferred Alternative (e.g., Frisbee, swimming pools, tot lots, bocce ball courts, exercise rooms, active recreation in courtyards, etc.) as approved by the City’s responsible public official (see the Parks and Recreation mitigation measures G2 and G8 in FEIS Chapter 1). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-19 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments 21. Your comment is noted for the record. From: Richard Bergquist [dickb@seanet.com] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 4:40 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Quendall project EIS Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged November 19, 2012 7244 East Mercer Way Mercer Island Washington 98040 City of Renton Planning Department Attn: Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Sixth Floor Renton Washington 98055 Vanessa Dolbee, I am writing to you regarding the Quendall Terminals project number LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSO, SA-M, Sm. I am very much against the current proposed Quendall Terminals EIS project redevelopment as written. The City of Renton is closing their public input regarding the Quendall project without the required EPA review to ask the neighboring areas for input as to what the public want that Superfund site to be used for after the cleanup. The EPA is required to make that inquiry according to their rules so that the cleanup effort will be appropriate for its intended use after the cleanup. The EPA has acknowledged that the rule exists but emailed that they thought there was some kind of loophole. There is no loophole as the EPA has in fact not notified the public nor have they asked the public the proper required questions. The EPA Superfund rules stipulate that the public has the right to inform the EPA what they want the cleaned up site to be used for after the site is cleaned up. Because the EPA has failed to obtain that data from the public the whole current City of Renton Quendall EIS is therefore seriously flawed and should be rejected. The EPA cannot make an appropriate plan for cleanup without the public input because they can only guess about what the public wants but not specifically know what the public wants. Neither the EPA nor the City of Renton is supposed to make the decision as to how the site should be used after cleanup. That decision is supposed to be left to the public. The EPA is supposed to obtain that information in order to devise a proper cleanup plan. It is no wonder that there are so many people writing their concerns about the EIS because the public were not specifically asked what they want. According to the EPA publication OSWER 9355.7-06P Reuse Assessment Guide on page 6, the “Community” is supposed to be asked things like, “What are the community’s expectations for reuse of the site”. In a similar vein the community is supposed to be asked, “What would community members like to see”? They are also supposed to be asked, “What would the community members oppose”? I do not know of any such questions being requested from the public in Renton nor from the public in the surrounding communities such as Mercer Island. According to the 1993 State of Washington Department of Ecology Agreed Order number DE 92TC-N335 The Department of Ecology has the right to modify or withdraw any provisions of this order should public comment disclose facts and considerations which indicate to Ecology that the Order is inadequate or improper in any respect. I hope that the Department of Ecology can and will now exercise that right. I do not know of any public comment that was ever requested or obtained at the time the Agreed Order was created in 1993. Whatever public input that may have been obtained was certainly insufficient and is dated now. On page six, item number 21 of the Agreed Order it says that there was, “a large spill … of creosote…in the 1930’s … water contaminates coated the lake bottom”. “The EPA study revealed high levels of PAH contamination in the offshore sediments”. According to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources publication on Creosote, “High PAHs…can cause cancer, mutation or malformation of embryo/fetus in fish, birds, amphibians and mammals. In face of this obvious danger, I do not see where the scope of actual cleaning of “the lake bottom as described in the Agreed Order ” has been adequately assessed or addressed in the DEIS. The proposed project is not in keeping with neither the Federal Environmental Protection Act for the use of Superfunds for the cleanup of toxic waste sites, nor the Shoreline Management Act etc. Required citizen input from affected nearby communities was never requested. The public never had the required chance to publicly discuss alternative uses of the land after the site was cleaned up. The current EIS is totally silent on what alternative uses the public wants to include. The public’s desire to use the land as a waterfront park was not and is not addressed in the alternative uses of the land even though it is my understanding that the present land owners offered to donate the land to the City of Renton. The park idea is extremely important because if the Quendall land was really cleaned up it could easily be attached to the existing May Creek Parkway and provide for a park that would extend from the shore of Lake Washington all the way up to the top of Cougar Mountain. It would be a shame if this potential addition to the park was not even considered. May Creek itself could easily be returned to its original channel (it was diverted in about 1910) to flow again right through the Quendall property. The people and the wildlife could greatly benefit from such a wonderful resource. It is again my understanding that the City of Renton turned down the offer of the land gift from the landowners because the city did not want the liability associated with such a contaminated site. The City of Renton does not seem to have a problem with potentially receiving the expected tax revenue that may be generated from huge six story apartment buildings allowed to be built within 50-100 feet of the shoreline. I think such a proposal makes a mockery of the intent of the Shoreline Management Act. If the City of Renton allows the current plan to be completed they will not be able to escape the potential liability anyway. The City of Renton cannot have it both ways to get additional tax revenues from the Quendall site and then pretend that they will not have liability for what happens there. The property under discussion has for many years been a small woodland oasis area located in a quiet neighborhood. The adjacent properties in that general area are two and three story homes along the shore. The City of Renton has lots of land available within its current boundaries that can be used for office space, commercial buildings etc. Such other areas would be far more suitable and appropriate sites for redevelopment. The City of Renton does not need to spoil the ambiance of the shores of Lake Washington. The proposed project is totally an inappropriate use of lake shore land. There is no critical need to use lake shore land to build office buildings. The citizens of the City of Renton however do have a critical need for additional waterfront parks. Citing a passage in the DEIS that states, “Residents of the proposed development would use nearby parks…including Gene Coulon.. and…Kennydale Beach, ..which are already at or exceeding capacity in the summer”. The people and the wildlife obviously need a new park. The Quendall land has the potential of becoming a State of Washington “Love Canal”, because the contamination is severe as reported in a number of Seattle Times published articles. The contaminated material was originally transported by barge from the Gas Works in Seattle. The cleanup site in Seattle has become a park but the City of Seattle will allow no structures of any kind to be built upon it because of danger to people from the known cancer causing materials to anyone who may live there. It follows that if Seattle will not allow construction of apartments on their Gas Works park land because of the cancer danger, then neither should Renton. Published articles report that both parcels of land are contaminated from the same cancer causing material. The current plan has no provision to dig down deep to removing the contaminated earth from the site that has trickled down from rain and other surface water into the earth. There is also nothing in the EIS plan to remove the pollution from the giant creosote spill that remains underwater either. As shown on the proposal the surface wetlands that exist on the Quendall property would be reduced to a tiny percentage of what exists now. There will be no meaningful wetlands left. As written in the current EIS there are no meaningful plans on reducing the potential light pollution from the huge buildings so the remaining “wetlands” will be subject to light pollution at night. There is no need for the City of Renton to forgo tax revenues from the apartments because the City of Renton already has abundant unused or underdeveloped land in the core area of Renton itself. The proposed buildings could be built there. There is no need to place those outsized buildings on the shore of the lake. Without cleaning up the contaminated lake bottom, access to the lake would have to be prohibited anyway just like it is today at Gas Works Park in Seattle. In essence the current EIS plan very flawed. I do not see where there is any meaningful cleanup planned. Protection for humans from the cancer causing material for the proposed apartments is supposed to be provided by ground level garages constructed under the apartment buildings. That proposal is simply unproven speculation. I can see no data in the EIS of any proven support for that idea. Ground water would remain contaminated and not useable for any purpose. The two aquifer layers under the Quendall land are being polluted as from the contamination and it will continue to enter the water of Lake Washington. I do not understand why the City of Renton terms this a “cleanup” as the current DEIS proposal essentially just calls for burying the hazardous land under a few feet of dirt. Seattle tried using this same idea many years ago on a similar 20 acre site known as Gas Works Park. Because the contaminated earth was not removed the City of Seattle will not will not permit anyone to build on that land for any reason. The Quendall proposal however would permit building apartments and offices for 800 plus people, using the same failed cleanup methods Seattle used for Gas Works Park. Trying to cover up polluted land with a few feet of dirt is a bad idea. There is a continuous large expense involved. The City of Seattle has had to repeatedly spend a large amount of money for many years to perform more tests because they did not require a real cleanup by removing the contaminated dirt. According to published articles the City of Seattle continues to find toxic pollution because the toxic soil was not removed. Visitors at Gas Works Park cannot wade into the water or go fishing there etc. People are going to get cancer whether or not it comes from the cancer causing material at the Quendall site. With all the many flaws in the current EIS plan to build apartments for hundreds of people on highly contaminated land, it is my feeling that attorneys will soon be attempting to make a connection between cancer and that polluted property. If that connection actually happened, property values in Renton and Mercer Island could take a huge drop. No one will want to live anywhere near there if newspaper headlines start reporting a cancer connection. The only real solution to these concerns is to request the City of Renton reconsider the whole plan and this time consider making the Quendall Land into a park that everyone could be proud to safely use. If you conclude with me, I hope that the Renton City Council members will request more time for public input and this time to take action to see that the affected citizens are suitably informed of the EPA rules, the cancer dangers and provide the public a method to protect their rights to have a say in what the land will be used for after the cleanup is properly performed. The Quendall property is a small strip of land that is unique because it is one of the very few parcels of land along Lake Washington that is still undeveloped. However the area is big enough to warrant your protection because it is in constant use by wildlife. It is the home to many eagles, birds, otters, some endangered Western Pond and other kinds of turtles and other small animals. This home for the wildlife right on the shores of the lake cannot be replaced. To spend Federal tax funds and State Tax funds to “cleanup” the site for the benefit of developers and anticipated tax revenues and then to turn around and allow the destruction of the wildlife habitat and pollute the same land with greatly increased noise and light on a grand scale is simply an ecological disaster. The DEIS states on page 2-6, that the EPA is the responsible entity for all cleanup/remediation plans and actions. The City of Renton refers to the Quendall site as having state wide impact yet does not require statewide public input. The measure of the adequacy of the cleanup of the Quendall site will actually remain the responsibility of the City of Renton. The general public in the State of Washington will hold the City of Renton responsible if the City of Renton accepts the current proposals. The city will be held liable for insuring that the public health and welfare is not jeopardized in the future. The facts are that the City of Renton is the responsible party for considering proposals for the cleanup efforts. It will be the City of Renton’s Hearing Examiner that finally accepts or rejects the proposal. It is the City of Renton that has the large financial interest in the project because of the possibility of increasing their tax base and stands to gain additional annual taxes. The City or Renton, despite the DEIS statement to the contrary, will be responsible for their actions not just the EPA or State of Washington. If the EPA and or the State of Washington State Department of Ecology also fail in this regard the taxpayers will become liable. The huge risks to all parties involved in this proposal are simply not worth taking. The City of Renton should also revise the old outdated zoning of the Quendall area because the uses for the area have substantially changed since the area was last rezoned many years ago. I would propose that studies of the current amount of light and noise emitting from the property as it is today be publicly disclosed. New and fairly taken tests should be used as the maximum amount of light and noise that would be permitted. These tests results should be made and accepted only after first acting to reduce the current amount of light pollution emitting from the Seahawks facility and the unnecessary parking lighting and City of Renton utilities. It is unfair to include in the tests and test results the current amount of light pollution caused by the Seahawks and the City of Renton. Using test results taken from an already light polluted environment would give false readings of what should be allowable. I certainly would require that the City of Renton pledge that they will never allow any increase in the current amount of light and noise that exists there today. I would also propose that the City of Renton suspend any further review of the Quendall proposal until the general public has a chance to provide input for the use of the site as a public park and wildlife habitat. Hopefully this may result in the creation of a wildlife friendly park where the citizens of the area can have a place they can quietly commune with nature in a meaningful wetland area that will provide protection for the birds, otters and turtles. I believe that studies should be required on the impact the proposed development will have on the rare turtles that inhabit the area. The public who will be paying for the huge expense of cleanup and the cost of maintaining it should be the ones who enjoy it. The public should not be locked out. Richard and Kathleen Bergquist Mercer Island Washington Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-25 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments RESPONSE TO EIS ADDENDUM LETTER 3 Richard Bergquist 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. The City asked EPA if the post-remediation conditions represented in the DEIS are reasonable given the expected general outcome of the Record of Decision (ROD). EPA indicated that the conditions are reasonable, with the increase of the minimum shoreline setback area to 100 feet from the lake edge (see DEIS Letter 4). The Preferred Alternative incorporates the shoreline setback recommended by EPA. EPA is required to consider whether the remediation alternative to be included in the ROD is protective of reasonably anticipated land uses following cleanup. EPA is planning to consider the land uses proposed in the DEIS and EIS Addendum during consideration of the selected remediation alternative. EPA will be involving the public throughout the cleanup process prior to development of the ROD. For concerns about EPA community involvement, please contact EPA’s Community Involvement Coordinator at 206-553-6689. 3. Please see the response to Comment 2 in this letter. 4. Please see the response to Comment 2 in this letter. 5. The DEIS and EIS Addendum evaluated proposed redevelopment following completion of the site remediation. Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS and receipt of comments from EPA on the document, the City placed SEPA review of the project on hold for approximately one year subject to further feedback from EPA on the environmental baseline (post-remediation conditions) assumptions. In March 2012, EPA indicated that the environmental baseline assumptions represented in the DEIS were reasonable given the expected general outcome of the ROD, if an increased 100-foot shoreline setback is assumed. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes the setback recommended by EPA. EPA is planning to consider potential land uses such as those proposed in the DEIS and EIS Addendum during consideration of the selected remediation alternative. EPA will select the most appropriate remedy to address contamination in the lake sediments and upland area considering the nature and extent of contamination, site specific conditions, and comparative analysis of remedial technologies and alternatives. A new mitigation measure has been added to this FEIS indicating that in the event that the ROD issued by EPA is different than what is assumed for this EIS, the City reviewing official shall determine whether the applicant shall be required to prepare additional SEPA review for the project (see Environmental Health mitigation measure C10 in FEIS Chapter 1). 6. Please see the responses to Comments 2 and 5 in this letter. 7. As described in EIS Addendum Section 4.7, Parks and Recreation, the Preferred Alternative would provide a total of approximately 10.6 acres of “Natural Public Open Space Areas” and “Other Related Areas”. The “Natural Public Open Space Areas” would include an approximately 0.5-acre trail within the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area, and approximately 3.2 acres of natural area along the trail. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits that trail, the trail would be relocated to the west side of Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-26 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments the westernmost building onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road. The approximately 6.9 acres in “Other Related Areas” onsite would include street-level landscaping, landscaped courtyards, sidewalks, paved plazas, and the Isolated Property. The “Other Related Areas” may or may not meet the City’s standards, regulations, and procedures for open space. Approximately 1.8 acres of indoor and/or outdoor area would be provided onsite for active recreation (i.e., Frisbee, swimming pools, tot lots, bocce ball courts, exercise rooms, active recreation in courtyards, etc.), as approved by the City’s responsible public official (see the Parks and Recreation mitigation measures G2 and G8 in FEIS Chapter 1). An alternative where the entire site is converted to a park was not evaluated in this EIS, as it would not meet the applicant’s objectives for the site (see DEIS page 2-8 for the applicant’s objectives). Per SEPA 197-11-440(5)(b), “EIS alternatives must feasibly attain or approximate a proposal’s objective, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation.” 8. Your comments are noted for the record. As indicated in EIS Addendum Section 3.3, Relationship to Plans and Policies, although the 1983 City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) was in effect at the time complete applications were submitted on the Quendall Terminals Project, the proposed redevelopment would meet the objectives of the Shoreline High Intensity Overlay District in the 2011 SMP. The Preferred Alternative includes a minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area along the entire shoreline onsite in which future wetlands, as well as buffers and setbacks, would be established, in accordance with EPA’s ROD or any Natural Resource Damages (NRD) settlement. If authorized by EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement, a public trail would be included through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area to provide opportunities for access along the shoreline. Final, detailed plans for the minimum shoreline setback area will be developed in accordance with EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement to ensure that safe public access to the shoreline area is possible. 9. As described in FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page2-24), the proposed redevelopment would generally be consistent with the site’s COR land use designation and zoning classification. The Preferred Alternative would not include any office uses. Also see the response to Comment 7 in this letter. 10. Please see to the response to Comment 5 in this letter. 11. Please see to the response to Comment 5 in this letter. The environmental baseline assumptions noted in FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Environmental Health – page2-20) include: Possible localized soil removal (i.e., in the former railroad loading area and in planned utility corridors onsite). 12. The wetland delineation that was included in the DEIS was conducted according to the methods defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Corps 2008), and DOE’s Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (DOE 1997). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-27 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments EPA has indicated that the environmental baseline (post-remediation conditions) represented in the DEIS are reasonable given the expected general outcome of the ROD, with the increase of the minimum shoreline setback area to 100 feet from the lake edge (see DEIS Letter 4). The Preferred Alternative includes the shoreline setback recommended by EPA. Final, detailed plans for the re-establishment of wetlands and their buffers will be developed in accordance with EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement as part of the remediation process, prior to redevelopment. As described on DEIS page 3-2 and Appendix C, the impacts of artificial lighting from the proposed redevelopment would represent an incremental addition to lighting along the shoreline in this area and would not be considered a significant impact. The DEIS and EIS Addendum include design elements to minimize the potential adverse effects of artificial lighting on wetland and riparian habitats. These include directing lighting downward and away from these habitats or adjacent properties, and could include shielding of lights, use of low-pressure sodium lights, or minimizing the use of reflective glazing materials in building design, as feasible (see FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). 13. Your comments are noted for the record. See the response to Comment 5 in this letter. 14. Please see the response to Comment 5 in this letter. 15. Please see the response to Comment 5 in this letter. 16. Your comments are noted for the record. 17. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 7 in this letter. 18. Your comments are noted for the record. See the response to Comment 5 in this letter. 19. As discussed in DEIS Section 3.2, Critical Areas, and Appendix E, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2009; also 2012) Priority Habitats and Species database shows no documented occurrences of priority species or habitats on the site or in the immediate vicinity, other than the presence of wetlands onsite along the lakeshore and listed fish species offsite within Lake Washington to the west and May Creek to the south. Bald eagles (a state sensitive species) may occasionally perch on the site, but the nearest known breeding site occurs on Mercer Island approximately one mile to the west, across Lake Washington. Although indicated as potentially occurring within King County by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012), the gray wolf has not been consistently or reliably documented within King County, particularly within the urbanized Puget Sound lowlands. Known or suspected occurrences of these wolves in Washington center on more remote, forested habitats in the north Cascades, and none have been recorded anywhere near the project site. Ospreys are known to occur in the area, and may use nest platforms constructed along the south end of the Seahawks Training Facility to the north and near the mouth of May Creek on the old Barbee Mill property to the south. 20. Your comments are noted for the record. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) authorized EPA to identify parties responsible for contamination of sites and compel the parties to clean up the sites. Where responsible parties cannot be found, EPA is authorized to clean up sites itself, Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-28 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments using a special trust fund. In the case of the Quendall Terminals site, the property owners, Altino Properties and J.H. Baxter and Company, are the parties responsible for cleanup of the site and federal or state funding is not being used to clean up the contamination on the site. 21. Please see to the response to Comment 5 in this letter. 22. Your comment is noted for the record. In 2011, the City re-designated the land use and re-classified the zoning of the Barbee Mill property from COR to RMD and COR to R-10. (see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details). 23. The DEIS and EIS Addendum included analyses of potential light and glare impacts with proposed redevelopment (see DEIS Section 3.7, Aesthetics/Views, and EIS Addendum Section 4.6, Aesthetics/Views). As part of these analyses, measures were identified to mitigate potential light and glare impacts on surrounding uses and the shoreline of Lake Washington (see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Light and Glare Response 1 – page2-32), and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). Noise was not included as an element for analysis in the EIS, because construction and operation of the proposed redevelopment is not anticipated to result in significant noise impacts (i.e., on surrounding uses) with adherence to the City’s noise regulations. New mitigation measures have been added to this FEIS to address potential noise impacts during construction of the project (i.e., related to the permitted hours of work; see Construction Impacts mitigation measures J3 and J4 in FEIS Chapter 1). 24. Your comments are noted for the record. See the response to Comment 7 in this letter. 4005 Park Ave. North Renton, WA 98056 425-430-1498 19 November 2012 Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA, 98057 Attention: Vanessa Dolbee, PM Subject: Quendall Terminal Amended EIS. I’m hereby expressing my strong opposition to the Quendall Terminal project as currently planned. I agree wholeheartedly with all of the concerns raised by Robert Becker in his letter of Nov. 17, 2012, and since he went into a good deal of detail in his letter, I will just highlight the main points here. The Amended EIS’s assessment of traffic impacts needs to be completely redone in order to appropriately address the added impact of the Hawk’s Landing development, the potential likelihood of Quendall traffic using not only southbound Lk. Washington Boulevard and the streets through Barbee Mill, but all of the other 25 mph residential streets such as Park Ave. N, N. 40th , N. 30th, and all of the small streets in between, to reach Exit 6 off 30th, and of course the likelihood (or lack thereof) of WDOT improving Exit 7, to have any helping impact. The scale, density, massing, and most particularly the building heights of the proposed project, are totally out of character with this lakefront location and its residential surroundings. It will significantly obstruct views from the east and south, as well as present a distasteful view from Lake Washington and across the water in Mercer Island. Superfund site remediation and cleanup need to be resolved and completed before any binding agreements are reached with the City, whether for the proposed, but poorly conceived, development, or for any modified and more appropriately scaled version of it. The wetlands on site do appear to be at least twice the size of those shown, and the City should realize that using a drainage ditch across the road is not proper or adequate mitigation. The habitat for the varied and prolific wildlife on the property must be addressed in the Amended EIS. The open space and public water access need to me maximized, not minimized, as appears to be the case. I fully support Robert Becker’s recommendation that this current proposal be rejected by the City, and require the developer either begin anew, or very significantly modify his current plans to address all of the traffic issues, as well as wetlands, wildlife, and open space, and most importantly, to develop a plan that appropriately responds to the scale and density of lakeside residential developments in the surrounding areas. Sincerely, John Hansen, AIA Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-30 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments RESPONSE TO EIS ADDENDUM LETTER 4 John Hansen 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. The DEIS and EIS Addendum considered the cumulative impacts associated with the Hawk’s Landing development and other pipeline development projects in the site vicinity. See the FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topics Areas (Transportation – page2-10) for additional analysis of the project’s potential impacts to Park Avenue N (Kennydale neighborhood). That analysis concluded that the project would not be expected to generate substantial cut-through traffic through the Kennydale neighborhood or significant impacts on operation of the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange. Therefore, no additional analysis is warranted for the other listed streets and arterials identified in this comment. In addition, in 2014 the City of Renton conducted a review of cumulative transportation impacts along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor, including the Quendall Terminals Project and five other known pipeline projects (City of Renton Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton, October 2014). The review concluded that project- specific mitigation without I-405 improvements for Quendall Terminals would be adequate in the near-term and the relocation of the future signalized access into the site from Ripley Lane to N 43rd Street should be considered (see FEIS Appendix C for details). 3. As discussed in FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale 1 – page2- 24), it is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the 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., in the 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., in Barbee Mill). With implementation of the project mitigation measures listed in Chapter 1, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. 4. EPA has indicated that the environmental baseline (post-remediation conditions) assumptions represented in the DEIS are reasonable given the expected general outcome of the ROD, if an increased 100-foot shoreline setback is assumed. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes the shoreline setback recommended by EPA. EPA is planning to consider potential land uses such as those proposed under the Preferred Alternative during consideration of the selected remediation alternative. EPA will select the most appropriate remedy to address contamination in the lake sediments and upland area considering the nature and extent of contamination, site-specific conditions, and comparative analysis of remedial technologies and alternatives. Also see FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Environmental Health – page 2-19). 5. The wetland delineation that was included in the DEIS was conducted according to the methods defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Corps Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-31 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments 2008), and DOE’s Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (DOE 1997). The retention/re-establishment of wetland area adjacent to Wetland J on the east side of Seahawks Way or Ripley Lane is intended to replace current wetland areas with a wider range of wetland function and value. While some stormwater runoff serves as a source of hydrology to the stream, Wetland J is a depressional wetland with emergent and scrub-shrub habitat. The expansion of Wetland J is intended to compensate for impacts to on-site wetlands not associated with Lake Washington (Wetlands B, C, E, and G) and is expected to replace functions lost as part of remediation activities (prior to any redevelopment). EPA will be responsible for review and approval of the proposed wetland replacement plan for the site through a separate process associated with site cleanup and remediation. 6. As discussed in DEIS Section 3.2, Critical Areas, and Appendix E, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2009; also 2012) Priority Habitats and Species database shows no documented occurrences of priority species or habitats on the site or in the immediate vicinity, other than the presence of wetlands onsite along the lakeshore and listed fish species offsite within Lake Washington to the west and May Creek to the south. Bald eagles (a state sensitive species) may occasionally perch on the site, but the nearest known breeding site occurs on Mercer Island approximately one mile to the west, across Lake Washington. Although indicated as potentially occurring within King County by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012), the gray wolf has not been consistently or reliably documented within King County, particularly within the urbanized Puget Sound lowlands. Known or suspected occurrences of these wolves in Washington center on more remote, forested habitats in the north Cascades, and none have been recorded anywhere near the project site. Ospreys are known to occur in the area, and may use nest platforms constructed along the south end of the Seahawks Training Facility to the north and near the mouth of May Creek on the old Barbee Mill property to the south. DEIS Section 3.2, Critical Areas, and Appendix E also evaluated the impacts of the proposed project on wildlife habitat. As described in that document, all of the existing vegetation communities would be removed as part of the remediation plan, prior to site development. Consequently, redevelopment of the upland areas onsite is not expected to remove significant habitat features or displace wildlife from these areas. EPA will evaluate the impacts of vegetation removal and associated wildlife/habitat impacts due to cleanup/remediation activities, as well as the re-establishment of shoreline habitat, through a separate review process. 7. As described in EIS Addendum Section 4.7, Parks and Recreation, the Preferred Alternative would include more area in “Natural Public Open Space Areas” than DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 (3.7 acres under the Preferred Alternative versus 3.4 to 3.5 acres under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively), including a greater amount of area for the trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area along Lake Washington (if the trail is approved by EPA). If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail would be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road. Approximately 1.8 acres of indoor and/or outdoor area would also be provided for active recreation (i.e., Frisbee, swimming pools, tot lots, bocce ball courts, exercise rooms, active recreation in courtyards, etc.), as Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-32 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments approved by the City’s responsible public official (see Parks and Recreation mitigation measures G2 and G8 in FEIS Chapter 1). 8. Your comment is noted for the record. From: Marleen Mandt [mailto:mkmandt@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:54 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: FW: Quendall Termainal - EIS Bob I appreciate your background and depth on this matter but you only listed the impact to exit 7 and 6 and not exit 5. I live on 26th which is the first street coming from the south that Lake Washington traffic go through the Kennydale neighborhood. We’ve seen more freeway traffic coming thru are neighborhood. My concern is with Southport and Quendall Terminal development impact to the neighborhood would be enormous. The city has done nothing to mitigate impact to the adjoining neighborhood or impact to preserving Lake Washington Blvd. Lake Washington Blvd is the only place where we can walk our dogs, bicycle with family and take a run. As you recall a women was run over 6 months ago while walking on Lake Washington Blvd. Marleen Mandt 1408 N 26th St Renton, Wa 98056 425 271-1167 Contentment is not possessing everything, but giving thanks for everything you possess. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-34 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments RESPONSE TO EIS ADDENDUM LETTER 5 Marleen Mandt 1. Please see FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topics Areas (Transportation – page 2-10) for additional analysis of the project’s potential impacts on Park Avenue N (the Kennydale neighborhood) and the N 30th Street/I-405 Interchange that was completed to address this comment. That analysis concluded that the project would not be expected to generate substantial cut-through traffic through the Kennydale neighborhood or significant impacts on the operation of the interchange. In addition, safe pedestrian circulation would be provided on the site and in the site vicinity under the Preferred Alternative, including curbs, gutters, and sidewalks within the site, as well as curbs, gutters, and sidewalks along the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane adjacent to the project site (see Transportation mitigation measure H3 in FEIS Chapter 1). From: Vanessa Dolbee [VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 11:03 AM To: Brunner, Gretchen Cc: Mathewson, Campbell; Ryan Durkan Subject: FW: Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Availability Gretchen, Please see the comment e‐mail received on the QT EIS Addendum below. Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall ‐ 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Cyrus McNeely [mailto:cmikeathom@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 9:48 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE: Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Availability I'm not confused. Having spent a 30 year career in the environmental group of a planning office of a federal agency, and chief of it for 4 or so years - the infamous ERS of the Corps - I believe I know what's going on. I'm looking for a response to the Park Ave. No. issue , identified during initial scoping as to be assessed and also commented on a couple times, wherever I can find it - in this addendum, in the final, all inclusive EIS or elsewhere. Because it has, so far, been ignored I can only assume that will likely continue. So I'm raising my flag in several different ways , one of which was my Reply All email to your list of those of record. It should be covered (and I don't mean, as we used to say in ERS, "kissed off") in the Final EIS. But, more importantly, it is an analysis that should be done, regardless of the official process. It's part of good planning. Cyrus M. ("Mike") McNeely 3810 Park Ave. No. Renton, WA 98056-1520 From: VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov To: cmikeathom@msn.com Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:22:08 -0700 Subject: RE: Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Availability Cyrus, Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-36 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments RESPONSE TO EIS ADDENDUM LETTER 6 Cyrus McNeely 1. Please see the FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topics Areas (Transportation – page 2-10) for additional analysis of the project’s potential impacts to Park Avenue N (Kennydale neighborhood). That analysis concluded that the project would not be expected to generate substantial cut-through traffic through the Kennydale neighborhood or significant impacts on operation of the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-38 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments REPSONSE TO EIS ADDENDUM LETTER 7 Cyrus McNeely 1. Please see FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page 2-10) for additional analysis of the project’s potential impacts to Park Avenue N (Kennydale neighborhood). That analysis concluded that the project would not be expected to generate substantial cut-through traffic through the Kennydale neighborhood or significant impacts on operation of the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange. From: mullinaux@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:47 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Re: Port Quendal Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Michael Mullinaux 1415 N. 24th St. Renton, WA. 98056 All, esp Renton City Dev Group, Since 1987 I have owned Kennydale property in the firm belief the log yard , terminals and beyond, being the last Lk Wash. waterfront available would be responsibly converted with some thought toward the people of the city of Renton and their recreation needs. Beyond Coulon there is virtually nothing for the city as a whole to enjoy about the waterfront. Then to see the Seahawks Millionaires Playground established with great fanfare(?). What kind of architecture is a big green box. OK,OK money rules. Then a gated community again with no waterfront access! Go away you 99%'ers. Now look at the comments‐ most if not all wanting to seal it off completely, once and for all. Go eat cake! Sorry some shorthand here... > A lot of excavating going on in the cleanup. Why not leave the hole and arrange a small craft marina. We are desperate for destination boating location‐something besides deep fried fish and chips(whats your colesterol?) and a dubious burger(do you eat it or does it eat you). Think down scaled Kirkland waterfront. Restauraunts/Light commercial. Stepped terraces down to waterfront. What about a small clamshell for local performing arts. Kibuki Theatre with your ice cream cone on a warm summer night? > EIS shown heights not out of line if apartments and commercial structures clustered around exit 44 are considered. Start with Seahawks green whatever. Go across to apartments over east of the highway. Commercial and high density residential there equal to sizes shown. And maybe heighth of the north side of the development will hide some of the Paul Allen green endowment. > Now is exactly the time to plan high use of exit 44. State will begin midsection replanning of 405 and replan 44th intersection with new volumes in mind. When I talked to the state engineer for 405 she said the problem is this section of 405 is the third most expensive project on the books after tunnel and 520 bridge. Voter fright! So just drop it out of the books‐solved. Once it is completed though I am sure all jump arounds traffic on Lk Wa. Blvd will drop off dramatically as has happened in S curves and I 90 interchange area. > Think a great use of the Cedar Homes yard would be a nice Marriott with Conference center. Yes, built to heights of highest apartments east of freeway‐perhaps the Kiewit office. Back it up to the greenbelt and lightly cleanup the green space for the fish, muskrats, deer, foxes, coyotes, etc. Continue that under 405. Nice conference center would bring down some Bellevue money and leave it behind in Renton for once. Rather than finishing practice and hopping in the Mercedes and going back to Bellevue. Thank you.. Michael Mullinaux 1415 N. 24th St. Renton, WA. 98056 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-40 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments RESPONSE TO EIS ADDENDUM LETTER 8 Michael Mullinaux 1. Your comment is noted for the record. A public trail is proposed through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area on site adjacent to Lake Washington that would connect to the sidewalk system on and offsite. Construction of this trail is subject to approval by EPA. If EPA’s Record of Decision (ROD) or any Natural Resource Damages (NRD) settlement prohibit the trail, the trail would be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road. 2. Your comment is noted for the record. A marina was not included in DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, and the Preferred Alternative, and, therefore, was not analyzed in the DEIS and EIS Addendum. Any restrictions on the use of Lake Washington adjacent to the Quendall Terminals site will be stipulated in the EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement for cleanup/remediation of the site. 3. Your comment is noted for the record. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24). 4. Your comment is noted for the record. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum assumed two transportation scenarios: 1) future development of the Quendall Terminals site with the NE 44th Street/I-405 Improvements, and 2) future development without the NE 44th Street/I-405 Improvements. Project mitigation measures were identified for both scenarios. See FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 5. Your comment is noted for the record. From: Vanessa Dolbee [VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 2:44 PM To: Brunner, Gretchen Cc: Mathewson, Campbell; Ryan Durkan Subject: QT Addendum Comments Gretchen, Please find below a comment on the QT EIS Addendum. Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall ‐ 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Larry Reymann [mailto:fulmen8@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 2:08 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE: Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Availability Hi Vanessa, Thanks for your help with the correct way to submit this feedback. As a private citizen, I share the concerns expressed about vehicular traffic gridlock though out Kennydale as a result of the proposed scale and density of the Quendall Terminals development. Where are the mass transit improvement/options that might be an antidote? I also have concerns about environmental degradation that would result from it: If, as section P1-5 states, the "majority of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces" with "offshore outfall locations for stormwater discharge", who will monitor the impact of this runoff on the Lake Washington Watershed and Aquifer? Pollution in stormwater runoff is the prime suspect in the prespawning mortality I have seen again this year in the coho salmon run trying to survive in May Creek. Much more provision for and detail of the "water quality treatment...for runoff from pollution generating surfaces" described in section P1-6 is necessary. Six story structures on the western edge of this property are the tallest proposed, and would seem to wall off Lake Washington. Through out the document, a public trail along the shoreline is repeatedly referenced as a mitigating component of the Environmental Impact from this development; but in section 4.2.4, language defining the trail as "provided" is struck, with the phrase "is proposed" substituted. This would indicate that the trail is an option for the developer, not a fact. The trail, educational signage, and public access to Lake Washington's Shoreline, must be a requirement for this development, as it was in the original EIS. This property will be developed. I appreciate the hard work of city staff in sharing these preliminary plans with the citizens who will be so directly impacted by them. Much work remains to make Quendall Terminals palatable and appropriate for the habitat and neighborhood we are blessed to share. Lawrence Reymann Family 1313 No. 38th St. Renton, WA 98056 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-43 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments RESPONSE TO EIS ADDENDUM LETTER 9 Larry Reymann 1. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum represent a comprehensive review of transportation impacts of existing and future traffic operations in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site at the 2015 project buildout assumed in those documents. These analyses specifically account for general and discrete pipeline development (including Barbee Mill, Hawks Landing and the Kennydale Apartments); have been updated to account for peak utilization of the Seahawks Training Facility; consider regional growth and traffic demand in the vicinity with and without future planned widening of I-405; and, reflect the latest available regional forecasts of population and employment levels throughout the Puget Sound. Additional transportation analysis was also provided in this FEIS for Park Avenue N/Kennydale neighborhood (see Chapter 2 Key Topic Areas Transportation – page2-10). Details on the City of Renton’s 2014 Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton, which analyzed the cumulative impacts on the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor from the Quendall Terminals Project and five other known pipeline projects, are also included in this FEIS (see FEIS Appendix C). As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I- 405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures. (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). Mitigation measures identified for the project include transportation improvements that would address project traffic impacts with or without I-405 Improvements. Without any I- 405 Improvements, significant arterial and intersection improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard, at site access intersections, and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramp junctions would be required to be completed as part of the project (see FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). No public transit service is currently provided to the Quendall Terminals site and the closest transit service in the site area is provided via a dial-a-ride service area fixed route service in the vicinity of the N 30th Street/ I-405 interchange. Future potential public transportation in the site vicinity could include Bus Rapid Transit on I-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT, with a flyer stop at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange. A mitigation measure identified for the Preferred Alternative would promote a multimodal transportation network by providing site amenities (i.e., planting strip, street lighting, etc.) and access to future transit zones on Lake Washington Boulevard and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange to encourage and accommodate public transportation access in the future. 2. As described in DEIS Section 3.2, Critical Areas, and EIS Addendum Sections 3.1 and 4.2, Critical Areas, the proposed stormwater management system would be designed in accordance with applicable stormwater regulations. This system would include water quality treatment facilities to collect and treat stormwater runoff from pollution-generating Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-44 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments surfaces (i.e., roadways and surface parking areas) prior to discharge to Lake Washington. It is acknowledged that pollution in stormwater runoff can adversely affect salmon and potentially result in mortality. However, as described above, stormwater runoff would be treated in accordance with rigorous, state of the art measures to help maintain and protect water quality and limit impacts to salmonid fish habitat. Moreover, it should be noted that under current conditions, prior to site cleanup/remediation, the shoreline habitat is likely impaired by the presence of toxic chemicals from past uses of the site. Remediation efforts to be performed per the requirements of EPA’s Record of Decision (ROD) or any Natural Resource Damages (NRD) settlement are likely to improve habitat substantially for salmonid fish and other species in the lake over current conditions. 3. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, 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., in the 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., in Barbee Mill). Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative based on comments on the DEIS, and continued coordination with and input from EPA and the City of Renton. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes modifications to enhance the compatibility of proposed redevelopment 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). As indicated in project mitigation measure F11 in FEIS Chapter 1: During final building design, maximum building heights 100 feet from the Lake Washington ordinary high water mark (OHWM) shall be reduced to one half of the maximum height allowed by the COR zone (125 feet allowed height x ½ = 62.5 feet), consistent with the City of Renton Shoreline Management Program (2011), which will help maintain views toward the lake. The trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area along Lake Washington is clarified as “proposed” under the Preferred Alternative in the EIS Addendum, because it is subject to approval by EPA. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail would be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road. See the clarifications in Parks and Recreation mitigation measures in FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20. 4. As described in DEIS Section 3.2, Critical Areas, and EIS Addendum Sections 3.1 and 4.2, Critical Areas, the Preferred Alternative includes mitigation measures that would provide public access via the trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area (if approved by EPA) and natural open space areas along the shoreline. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail would be relocated to the west side of the westernmost building, and could be combined with the fire access road. A mitigation measure is also identified to include trail amenities such as tables, litter receptacles, Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-45 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments benches, interpretive signage, etc. as approved by the City’s Community Services Administrator (see FEIS Chapter 1 Parks and Recreation mitigation measure G10). From: Chelsea Ryberg [chelsearyberg@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 10:46 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: wsihon@comcast.net; bgmc2@cox.net; borg41943@comcast.net; lpreid@comcast.net; aimerdoll@yahoo.com; fulmen8@hotmail.com; garys@loziergroup.com; cmikeathom@msn.com; mscero@comcast.net; taryntani@gmail.com; bmaccaul@gmail.com; a.woodley@comcast.net; swu@bechtel.com; suzywo@verison.net; christineschen@yahoo.com; vchiu74@hotmail.com; glen@muckleshoot.nsn.us; rrcorbell@comcast.net; stows@comcast.net; agrawaalr@yahoo.com; bonethedawgs@yahoo.com; sbholden@nwlink.com; altglennmal@comcast.net; pavyt@hotmail.com; amyroberts@seanet.com; jobitney@comcast.net; forsue2go@comcast.net; fayeandlorna@comcast.net; conniemtaylor@comcast.net; lesbergan@comcast.net; mkmandt@comcast.net; dyma20@yahoo.com; jonjdan@aol.com; mbattin@yahoo.com; rochsjr@comcast.net; susanagrenmiller@hotmail.com; bud@nwccc.net; mimiafsc@mac.com; kpreszler@hotmail.com; johsamm@comcast.net; lancel@seahawssoundersfc.com; laurieb@mvseac.com; Spencer Alpert (spencer@alpertcapital.com); idenkr@comcast.net; annsimpson@comcast.net; paulrsiegmund@gmail.com; rfnucik@comcast.net; msnicol@gmail.com; pwitt55@aol.com; mbfamily6@gmail.com; rgb@beckerarch.com; royfrancis@msn.com; yyluan@yahoo.com; j.diddly@gmail.com; ricardoadlc@msn.com; nancydenney@comcast.net; tommbaker@hotmail.com; lindabak@hotmail.com; elisabethdurr@gmail.com; abelenky@alum.mit.edu; gretchen.kaehler@dahp.wa.gov; gwendolynhigh@hotmail.com; headac1@comcast.net; kevinpoole@mac.com; dickb@seanet.com; dianej2419@msn.com; bskilling@msn.com; Jenny Manning; mullinaux@comcast.net Subject: Re: Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Availability Attachments: AtN41stSt‐lookingSouthOnLakeWaBlvd.JPG; AtSeahawksWay‐ LookingSouthwestOnLakeWaBlvd.JPG; AtSeahawksWay‐ LookingNortheastTowards405Ramps.JPG Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Ms. Dolbee, all, Comments in response to EIS Addendum: (Please let me know if this not the correct forum for feedback comments) Regarding Chapter 3.4 Transportation: I believe the following evaluation in the EIS to be incorrect or at least insufficient: "However, no queuing conflicts would be expected on Lake Washington Boulevard" on page 3-21. Attached are photos showing the morning traffic backup of (more than) 0.5 miles on Lake Washington Blvd during the morning peak hour (all photos were taken between 8:15-8:30am). The photos (labeled) were taken at the intersection of Seahawks Way & Lake Washignton Blvd, and even more alarmingly, at the intersection of N 41st St & Lake Washington Blvd. This backup is a frequent condition of the Exit 7/LakeWaBlvd/44th St infrastructure and was observed on several days over the last 3 weeks (and for the last several years that we have lived near the property in question). These photos are taken at what would be the proposal's entrance to the property. The photos They clearly demonstrate that an additional 1,108 residents (the "Anticipated Site Population") living at and commuting to/from this junction would further overwhelm an already strained infrastructure, that does in fact affect Lake Washington Blvd. While the city has done an excellent job capturing and communicating the concerns regarding the property, the photos demonstrate that the EIS does not sufficiently evaluate the current and potential traffic situation on Lake Washington Blvd in its current state, and what the effect of an additional 1,108 residents could have on these roads. Additional investigation of the traffic situation on Lake Washington Blvd, and revision of this section of the EIS is requested. Regarding Chapter 3.2 Aesthetics/Views: Despite the changes made for the "Building Height Modulation" (4-story buildings along south property line; 5- to 6-story buildings elsewhere), the proposed buildings of these heights would still block much of the view from our home and the other units in our complex immediately southeast of the property - much of the value of our home and the neighboring units in the complex depends on the views to the northwest. Specifically regarding the modified heights, 4 stories would block a portion of these views, greatly affecting our home's value (and that of the 32 total units in our complex). My evaluation of Figure 2-6 (the Overall West Elevation) concluded that the 5-6 story buildings even with the modified placement would definitely block views and affect the value- as they still would affect the view corridor running North-Northwest. The drawings on pages Efforts to make the exterior of the building more aesthetic are appreciated, but still do not come close to the value of the territorial and water views. Community members - thank you so much for your continued concern and commitment to preserving the quality of life in the Kennydale and 44th St community. Vanessa - Thank you so much for your continued facilitation and excellence. Chelsea Ryberg 4100 Lake Washington Blvd N, Renton Eastport Shores Townhomes Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-50 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments RESPONSE TO EIS ADDENDUM LETTER 10 Chelsea Ryberg 1. Your comment is noted for the record. The conclusion regarding no queuing conflicts on Lake Washington Boulevard without I-405 Improvements in 2015, with the Quendall Terminals Project traffic mitigation was based on an analysis conducted using the Synchro 6 and HCS 2000 traffic software packages, which are accepted methods for analysis in the transportation engineering industry (see EIS Addendum Appendix E for details). As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures. (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 2. Your photos are incorporated for the record. The DEIS and EIS Addendum describe existing conditions and future baseline conditions without the project and note existing level of service and vehicle queuing deficiencies. EIS Addendum Table 3.4-6 and FEIS Table 2-1 shows that intersections in the site vicinity that currently operate poorly would operate at acceptable levels (LOS E or better) with implementation of the project mitigation. And, according to FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation. 3. Your photos are incorporated for the record. The transportation analysis in the DEIS and EIS Addendum used locally and nationally-accepted transportation engineering methods and practices to evaluate peak hour traffic conditions with and without the Quendall Terminals Project. Project-related mitigation measures were identified to ensure that traffic operations within the site vicinity would operate within accepted standards with the project, and with or without I-405 Improvements. Photographic evidence of a single moment during the course of the morning commute does not necessarily represent traffic operations over the course of the typical planning and evaluation period of an entire hour. Given the intersection’s proximity to the interchange, a traffic collision, stalled vehicle, or other event within the interchange vicinity could generate similar queues. Therefore, discrete evidence of this nature cannot be used to plan or design a project. As indicated in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation. 4. The DEIS transportation analysis was updated in the EIS Addendum (see EIS Addendum Appendix E); additional transportation analysis is also included in this FEIS (see Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page2-10) and Appendix B to this document). These analyses represent a comprehensive review of the potential transportation impacts of the Quendall Terminals Project. They specifically account for general traffic growth and traffic from pipeline development, reflecting the latest available regional forecasts of population and employment levels throughout the Puget Sound and accounting for peak use of the existing Seahawks Training Facility. The studies Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-51 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments consider regional growth and traffic demand in the site vicinity with and without future planned widening of I-405 (including congestion and diversion to parallel corridors). Project mitigation measures have been identified to ensure that all affected intersections and roadways would operate at acceptable levels (see FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). In addition, in 2014 the City of Renton conducted a review of cumulative transportation impacts along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor, including the Quendall Terminals Project and five other known pipeline projects (City of Renton Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton, October 2014). The review concluded that project- specific mitigation without I-405 improvements for Quendall Terminals would be adequate in the near-term and the relocation of the future signalized access into the site from Ripley Lane to N 43rd Street should be considered. As a result, mitigation measures for the Quendall Terminals Project have been modified in this FEIS to allow the City, WSDOT, the applicant and other adjacent properties to further consider this potential relocation in future design of the interchange system (see FEIS Appendix C for details). 5. It is acknowledged that views or portions of views from certain residences could be obstructed by proposed development on the Quendall Terminals site. However, development under the Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the site’s existing COR zoning, and below the site’s allowed maximum height and development density. As such, the Preferred Alternative likely would provide greater view corridors through the site than development that maximized the provisions of the COR zone. Viewpoints #7, #8, and #9 portray before and after views to and through the site. As described on EIS Addendum pages 3-10 through 3-13, views toward Lake Washington and Mercer Island from these viewpoints under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to under DEIS Alternative 2. However, building heights would be lower in this portion of the site with the Preferred Alternative. Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. 1006 North 42nd Place Renton, Washington 98056 425.502.5195 paulrsiegmund@gmail.com November 18, 2012 City of Renton Department of Economic & Community Development, Planning Division Renton City Hall 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Attn: Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, vdolbee@rentonwa.gov Subject: Comments Against Quendall Terminals Draft EIS 2012 Addendum (LUA09-151) The 20102 proposed “preferred alternative” is very slightly improved from the original pair of 2010 project proposals but still does not show a design or land use concept that is compatible with adjacent uses or with local traffic capacities. The preferred alternative in the addendum to the DEIS still imposes far too heavy an environmental burden in terms of: Transportation Aesthetics and views Land and shoreline use Environmental health Traffic and Transportation The existing road and bridge infrastructure cannot handle the load imposed by construction of a new residential complex. It is inadequate even for current volumes. As evidence, I submit a thousand words in a photomosaic of a normal morning on Lake Washington Boulevard. This shows 7:45am on Wednesday, November 14, at the North 42nd Place entrance to Barbee Mill. The solid backup extended 450 yards, more than 1/4 mile, from the Exit 7 ramp beyond the N 41st Street intersection, beyond the foliage at the right edge of the field of view. During the 40- 60 second period that I sat to shoot, assemble and process these images in my phone I estimate that the northbound line advanced just 4 cars while one car (visible in the photo) drove southbound at the speed limit. Further I am only aware of three Barbee Mill residents whose morning commute begins southbound rather than north. In my direct experience, this is the routine state of morning traffic, at that approximate time, two to three days per week. Other commenters about this project have observed and noted that the traffic load continues to grow later in the morning. The local commute traffic flow is biased overwhelmingly one way already, northbound in the morning, and new residents can only be expected to match this pattern. The local infrastructure demonstrably cannot consistently handle its load now. It cannot be permitted to grow worse, and there are no state or city plans or funds to make significant changes, therefore the project will have to wait for years before mitigations can be put in place. Old data, ineffective modeling and outdated assumptions are no substitute for direct observations. Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [2] In models, the developer concedes that the Preferred Alternative would generate only about 5% fewer daily vehicular trips than the 2010 development alternative. WSDOT went on record during the EIS scoping process in 2009-2010 to say there were no funds available for freeway and ramp improvements, that there would not be funds in the foreseeable future, and that traffic assessments should not assume any state improvements have been made. Nothing has changed since that time. The proponent’s offer to pay the city a mitigation fee against future traffic improvements has no effect—it does not commission any planning, scheduling or work on city roads, and it does nothing for the state’s bridge, ramps and freeway. The offer accomplishes nothing. The traffic study data were collected in 2008 and 2009, according to the DEIS. Population along Lake Washington Blvd and around The Landing has grown substantially since then. The traffic data, and resulting studies, are no longer valid. Section 3-21 of the DEIS Addendum claims that traffic cueing is not a problem now and would not grow worse if 700 apartments were built near one intersection of two-lane roads. The claim of present status is false. And the claim against future impacts is absurd, impossible to justify, and has no support. Height, Bulk & Density The new preferred alternative has added a 3-story building (called SW4) closest to Barbee Mill where there was at-grade parking before. In the project summary the proponent claimed to have increased the setback relative to their 2010 alternatives. They have in fact reduced the proposed setback from adjacent residences, in a highly visible location, by nearly 100 feet. There is no vacant land remaining in the Barbee Mill development. The visual analysis points 8 and 9 that were created before the northern Barbee Mill homes were built are now incorrect and not representative, and therefore unpersuasive. The proposed population density of the preferred alternative is seven times greater than the adjacent Barbee Mill residential development, and even higher in comparison to the Kennydale neighborhood that surrounds the site. The applicant continues to claim that their proposal is compatible with adjacent uses such as the Seahawks training center and the proposed Hawks Landing hotel. However no sane person has ever argued that the Seahawks’ giant green Butler building is a welcome neighbor, and the immediately adjacent portion of the Seahawks’ property comprises 6 acres of grass, and there is no Hawks Landing hotel. The proposal does not fit the local area and the proponent has said nothing useful to support an argument that it does. The preferred alternative contains essentially all of the residential and commercial capacity of DEIS Alternative #2 but with more sprawl, even nearer encroachment toward neighbors, significantly reduced open space and even less adequate provision of wetlands (see my 2011 comment letter, attached below) for specific critique of the inaccuracy of wetland assessments on the site. While I appreciate the proponent’s effort to reduce the height of buildings along the southern edge of the property I am surprised to learn that he intended to maintain floor area by increasing Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [3] the number of buildings. That was not the point of community objections to proposed height and bulk. Reference: The proponent’s plot plan and building shapes drawn to scale among existing nearby uses (courtesy Google Earth.) Note the size of the development in relation to nearby homes and to the Seahawks’’ training center. Aesthetics in General The cosmetically revised building designs look even more like The Reserve and The Sanctuary apartment buildings in the urban/shopping area of Renton (adjacent to the airplane factory) than the 2010 proposals did. The redesign work is not helpful, and does not improve upon the incompatibility with existing adjacent uses. Environmental Health Proponent has requested an exception to allow their construction process to drag on for an unacceptable period potentially exceeding five years. That is not acceptable and must be rejected by the city. If any construction is contemplated by the city, the proponent’s desire for phased construction must be rejected as incompatible. Construction would have to be all at once or nothing, get it over with or skip it. Vibration, noise, dust, potential exposure to airborne toxins that are now stable beneath foliage, access by trucks and construction equipment of a volume adequate for a large development are themselves incompatible uses, even if temporary, when considered adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood that is frequently downwind from the project site. If any such use is granted to the proponent, then it needs to move at all possible speed. If they begin they have to get it over with. The idea that construction of large buildings could be done slowly in a residential neighborhood is offensive and obviously not compatible with local land uses. Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [4] When Barbee Mill and the VMAC fields were remediated and built upon, they did not have adjacent neighbors. Now after the passage of time, the Quendall Terminal is surrounded. As it is last in line, it loses. Any constructors there will have to deal with different conditions than its predecessors did. And although Barbee Mill’s construction process has stretched through several years while residents live in the neighborhood, the construction noise workload has consisted of just a handful of single-family residences at a time. It pales in comparison the local impacts proposed for Quendall. Emergency Access The new emergency access road along the western waterfront edge of the development cannot be counted on for usability in periods of wet or snowy weather. Solidity of the soft roadbed while wet, and visibility thereof when it is obscured by occasional snow, would each place fire and police vehicles at risk of stranding or accidental loss during responses in fall, winter and spring. The Renton police and fire departments have few vehicles capable of operating off road. They need hard roadways. Conclusion The central claim in the DEIS, that “[t]he proposed height and bulk and setbacks of development … would be consistent with the existing urban character of the area and the applicable provisions of the City of Renton regulations; therefore, no significant height and bulk or land use compatibility impacts would be anticipated,” is still demonstrably and objectively false. Recommendations Deny the absurd claims of compatibility with and minimal impact to the surrounding area. Reject the EIS’s and Addendum’s claims of compatibility and minimal impact, even in reduced form. Again encourage the developer, or other developers, to return with proposals that are much smaller—a (small, not large) fraction of the currently-proposed size--and that are actually compatible with the local area. Approve nothing, not even a significantly reduced revision, until or unless credible traffic assessments are completed and appropriate improvements are made. Approve nothing until the EPA completes public processes and approvals of a viable environmental remediation plan that accounts for present hazards and hazard to persons during remediation and construction. I have attached my January 20, 2011 comments/objects letter here as all points that I raised (except those regarding office uses and associated traffic) about the 2010 DEIS still apply, and have not been addressed by the changes in the Addendum. Respectfully, Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [5] Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. 1006 North 42nd Place Renton, Washington 98056 425.502.5195 paulrsiegmund@gmail.com January 20, 2011 City of Renton Department of Economic & Community Development, Planning Division Renton City Hall 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Attn: Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, vdolbee@rentonwa.gov Subject: Comments Against Quendall Terminals Draft EIS (LUA09-151) I submit the following to amplify and to amend the oral comments I provided at the January 4, 2011, public meeting. I object to the content of the draft EIS and to the overall nature of the project it describes. 1. The DEIS describes impacts to surrounding areas which it claims are insignificant but which in fact are enormous as anyone can see. I will show meaningful visual comparisons in this letter, since the application and DEIS failed to do so. 2. The DEIS describes a project which it claims is consistent with existing adjacent uses and will have no significant height and bulk or land use compatibility impacts when in fact the existing surrounds have nothing in common with the project, the rest of Lake Washington has nothing in common with it nor do any other freshwater frontages in King County, and its compatibility impacts would be hugely detrimental to quality of life along Lake Washington. The proposal is, by the way, even taller and denser than anything on the shoreline of Seattle’s decidedly urban (and industrial) Lake Union. The DEIS includes no less than six repetitions of the phrase “consistent with the existing urban character of the area,” and numerous repetitions of “No significant height and bulk impacts would be anticipated” and ”No significant land use compatibility impacts would be anticipated.” All of these statements are preposterous and completely without basis in fact. 3. The Draft EIS document is incomplete and inaccurate in its presentation of important required data. 4. The applicant’s claim to have crafted a meaningful alternative for the purpose of meeting procedural requirements for an EIS is a sham. Alternative 2 is not significantly different from Alternative 1, at about 85% of the size of the original. The purported alternative is equally inappropriate for the character of the local area, and equally aesthetically offensive, as the original proposal. It would have been appropriate for the purpose to consider an alternative proposal in the range of HALF the size of the original in order for the comparisons to have any meaning. Therefore the only acceptable alternative among the three in the Quendall Draft EIS is the third, the no-action alternative. Leave the property alone until a sane, rational, locally appropriate development proposal is crafted. Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [6] The central foundational claim in the impact statement, on which all conclusions have to rest, is FALSE. With similar assertions throughout DEIS: “The proposed height and bulk and setbacks of development … would be consistent with the existing urban character of the area and the applicable provisions of the City of Renton regulations; therefore, no significant height and bulk or land use compatibility impacts would be anticipated.” Applicant is evidently asserting compatibility with the Seahawks and The Landing. These are not relevant or appropriate, as the Seahawks are unique, and The Landing is too far away to be meaningful. The proposed design, height, size and density would be more appropriate in a truly urban setting such as near The Landing. Sandwiched between a shopping mall and the country’s second-largest airplane factory, it would look beautiful. But not in a residential area, which is the majority of usage of the land along the water in north Renton. Placing this dense urban conglomerate in the middle of existing otherwise residential area would damage local property value and ruin neighborhood character. To claim compatibility and consistency with existing uses is an insult to readers’ and taxpayers’ intelligence. This is a residential neighborhood. The project is at least twice the size and density that could be acceptable. Slim the plan down. Lower the roofs. There is no existing character, use, height and bulk that is consistent and compatible with, and therefore would be minimally impacted by, the tallest and most water-proximate new development proposed for Lakes Washington and Union, and all of King County. The language in the DEIS is false, following flawed or absent logic used to construct a desired conclusion. A clear look at the information gathered when examining traffic impact, architecture, density, usage of land in a residential neighborhood, usage of land near a beautiful lake, usage of land that is presently wet and wild and home to wildlife, and when considering light, glare, noise, aesthetics and transportation, in absence of a foregone conclusion reached due to attempt to promote the project, would render the conclusion of minimal impact completely absurd. The city has the authority and the duty to conclude that the proposal is not viable, and therefore to reject it. Do this. The following meaningful visual presentations of the project are significantly different from any presented in the DEIS. These will accurately depict its size, bulk and density: in comparison to nearby existing structures and uses that are in no way similar to the proposal and to distant waterside structures and uses that are more so, but still smaller and less dense Height, B Elevation furnished Q g E B S L n Figure 3. and surro been ma than they Simulate available the left is twice the one exce but appe Seahaw Bulk & Dens n View of jus d by the App Quendall buil o all the way Elevator mac Buildings are Seahawks ha o This is o The p even ook again at earby with o .7-2 of the D ounding neig nipulated in y actually are d photo of p e topographic s VMAC, on e height of th eption. Note ear taller bec wks Center sity st two Quend plicant (DEIS dings labele y to their top chinery room actually clo angar is 115 s ¾ of Seah proposal is a longer than t simulated p one exceptio DEIS, claimin ghborhood fr this view pr e. proposal area c and photog the right Ba he 35ft adjac also that the cause they a dall Building S figure 2-5.) ed as 77 ft in ps. ms, roof peak se to 90 ft a ft high, and awks and m lso three tim the Boeing 7 photos, espe on of comple ng to be a vis rom Clark P rovided on b a, also from graphic data rbee Mill. No cent residenc e proposed b re much clo s, as viewed ) n height are d ks, and final bove curren Boeing’s 73 more than twi mes the lengt 737 assemb ecially from w tely unique sual simulat ark on Merc ehalf of the Clark Park o a, and Goog ote that Que ces and eve buildings are ser to the sh d from the w drawn with d grade are n nt grade. Bar 37 assembly ice that of A th of the Sea bly facility. waterside. P use and cha ion of the vie cer Island. Th applicant to on Mercer Is le Earth 3-D endall’s 75 fo erything else e nearly as t horeline. Paul R. Sie water of Lake dimension m ot correctly rbee Mill is o y hall is abou ANY local res ahawks’ indo Proposal dwa aracter, the S ew of the Qu he proposed be much low sland. Creat D building ren oot buildings on Lake Wa tall as the Se Barbe gmund, P.E e Washingto marks that do added. only 32ft – 3 ut 110 ft. sidences. oor field, and arfs everyth Seahawks c uendall prop d buildings h wer in heigh ted using pu ndering tools s are more th ashington, w eahawks’ ce ee Mill E. [7] n, o not 5ft. d is ing camp. posal have ht blicly s. On han with enter, Google E adjacent the large of the pro nearby. One half Local Ae Earth aerial t. The red-ou e Boeing Ren oposed cons of the assem erial Photos l of the Que utlined shap nton final as struction. Cle mbly hall, sh s and Rende endall propo pe placed ov sembly plan early it has n hown for refe erings from osal with th er the Quen nt re-drawn h no commona erence, shot m Publicly A he Seahawk ndall property here to emph ality or comp t from The L Available Inf Paul R. Sie ks Center an y is a 1:1 sc hasize the e patibility with Landing, 300 formation gmund, P.E nd Barbee M cale 3-D copy enormous sc h anything 0 feet away: E. [8] Mill y of cale These re dimensio made ag allow view staggerin lakefront Aerial Ph their web approxim (ie north Aerial Ph immediat website. feet wide enderings of ons taken fro ainst publicl wing from si ng difference developme hoto of Carill bsite. The im mately 700 fe to south.) hoto of Porto tely south of The image a e, from left to the Quenda om the applic y available a imilar perspe e in the size, nts that are, on Point, Ki mage area is eet wide, from ofino, Kirklan f Carillon Po area is again o right (north all proposals cant’s own s aerial photog ective as the , density and by most sta rkland, from m left to righ nd, oint, from the n about 700 h to south.) are made u submittals in graphs of ot e aerial phot d sprawl of t andards, alre ht Goog Sam w eir Goog using Google the DEIS. T her local dev tographs. Re he Quendal eady large. le Earth ren me perspecti idth. Note th a le Earth ren Paul R. Sie e Earth polyg The compari velopments, eaders will n l proposal ve dering of Qu ve (elevatio he much gre and height o dering of Qu Again, sim gmund, P.E gon tools, w son images , and rotated note the ersus other uendall Prop n & azimuth ater density f these build uendall Prop milar perspe E. [9] with are d to posal. h) and y, size dings. posal. ctive. Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [10] Examples of Comparable Construction in Renton: Apartments in The Landing Two miles away from Quendall, The Reserve and the Sanctuary stand shorter than the Quendall proposal, by about 8 feet. They are similar in design, though only 74 feet tall. They have approximately the same lateral density and spacing between buildings. They are set adjacent to a shopping center and one of the world’s largest airplane factories, on 5-lane arterial roads, in a busy commercial district (not a residential neighborhood). They are 2,000 feet from the lake shore. Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [11] A survey tour clockwise around Lake Washington of existing developments, with notes on existing, comparable usages and heights Purpose: to search for compatible or consistent uses in the region that might validate the applicant’s claims in support of the Quendall proposal. Preview of the conclusion a few pages onward: There are none. Begin by traveling southward, from the north tip of the lake, along the Eastside shoreline Juanita (Kenmore & King County) Single family residential 6-story condo under construction, abandoned. Set back from the lake by a companion 2- story condo. Kirkland north Juanita Bay, north of downtown: Several 3 & 4-story condos Public beach park Single-family residential Kirkland Downtown 2 & 3 story condo & commercial. Generally one level is set into bank, not visible from street, giving neighbors the illusion that the buildings are 1-2 stories Marina Park Away from the waterfront separated by urban roadways: 6 story max, condos. Nothing on the shore or away from that rivals the Quendall proposal in size, height or density. South of Kirkland downtown: Commercial 3-4 story Beach park Condos, 3 stories above a parking deck, with one level generally not visible from Lake Washington Blvd. Single-family residential and 1-2-story apartments & condos Another beach park Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [12] Carillon Point area: Immediately north, a condo with 3 stories above one parking deck Carillon Point has o 4 story hotel and office above parking; 1.5 levels are not visible from street. o The two office towers are 6 stories above parking, set back from the lake by smaller buildings. o The two offices are comparable in height, while drastically less dense than the Quendall proposals. These are the only large buildings on Lake Washington, north of Renton. Portofino, immediately south of Carillon Point: 4 stories. One level is below the street. Points Cities: Single family residential Bellevue Single family residential except, Meydenbauer Bay, o Mostly single-family residential o Beach parks & a marina o Some 2-3 story condos with one level below street, set into the bank More single family residential Newcastle Beach park & single family residential Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [13] Renton Residential: single-family and one 3-story condo Seahawks training center. No doubt a completely unique structure and usage, by any standard; not comparable to anything. 115 feet maximum height Vacant, wild land at Quendall Barbee Mill: mostly single family residential. 3 stories, 35 feet max Aerial photo More single family residential Coulon Beach Park Zoomed in: 2.5 miles away from Quendall: Bristol Apartments, 4 stories above 1 parking level, total height 55 feet. Boeing 737 assembly facility. Maximum height about 110 feet. Renton Airport Within The Landing--DISTANT FROM THE SHORE OF THE LAKE Reserve and Sanctuary Apartments. 5 stories above 2 parking levels. Max height 74 feet. (SHORTER THAN QUENDALL) Commercial and office space, max 2 stories, vacant space, vacant acreage Mercer Island The entire Mercer shoreline is single-family residential except for beach parks and clubs. Project Site, shown AT SCALE Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [14] Continuing north along the Seattle shoreline: Bryn Mawr/Seattle Single family residential Marina. Water’s Edge: 5-6 story condo. Blocked from view in the proposal area. Rainier Beach Marina Seattle Single family residential Seward Park Single family residential Approximately 3 miles of greenbelt between Lake Washington Blvd and the lake Single family residential Leschi Single family residential, mixed with 3-story max, multi-family Marina & commercial; 2-3 story Single family residential for 3 miles until almost reaching SR-520 Madison Park Mostly Single family residential Some 3-story max multi-family Two exceptions: residential towers built decades ago before similar construction was disallowed Parks 2 story apartments near SR-520 Portage Bay Single family residential There is nothing compatible or consistent with the Quendall proposal anywhere on the lake, near of far, not even in previously developed commercial waterfront areas. Emphasizing again: The central claim in the DEIS, that “[t]he proposed height and bulk and setbacks of development … would be consistent with the existing urban character of the area and the applicable provisions of the City of Renton regulations; therefore, no significant height and bulk or land use compatibility impacts would be anticipated,” is demonstrably and objectively false. Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [15] Lake Union A study in density and urban character notionally similar to, but smaller and less dense than the Quendall proposal. This is what ‘impact’ looks like. Offices up to 8 stories Shipbuilding & repair Houseboats Parks Seaplane terminal Wooden Boat Museum Gas Works Park Aurora and I-5 bridges Lake Union conceivably qualifies as what the DEIS calls “urban character” placed along a lakeside waterfront. It is filthy, crowded, and has horrifying traffic on it surrounding roads. And even Lake Union has nothing at the scale of the Quendall proposal. Evidence: Even the new Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center is predominantly 4 & 5 stories, and is across the arterial road from the lake. Nothing newly built on the shore exceeds 3 stories. On the west edge of the lake, most buildings are 2-3 stories. There are only two taller buildings built on piers before environmental regulations banned that practice. Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [16] Wetlands & Habitat The Quendall property is a habitat for numerous individual bald eagles, deer, osprey, hummingbirds, woodpeckers and other unidentified birds. The EIS is deficient in making no mention of their presence or mitigation of their loss of habitat. Sloppy or intentionally misleading Wetland estimates: Wetland area “H” on the southwest corner of the Quendall property is persistently about 300 ft x 100 ft in size, irregular, thus presently comprising about ¾ of an acre. This is sixty times (!) larger than the roughly 50 ft x 10 ft oval indicated on the applicant’s maps (figs 2-6, 2-11.) Other wetlands in the subject property similarly appear upon visual inspection to be significantly larger in reality than the applicant’s maps show them. The applicant’s proposals for wetland substitution are grossly insufficient as they are: o Orders of magnitude too small in size. They are based on wetland area estimates that are as many as sixty times to small. o Factors of at least two times original should be required. o Too far from the lake, segregated near the 405 freeway, to be useful. [Taken January 16, 2011] Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [17] Traffic 43rd St & Ripley Ln are inadequate to handle any more traffic. Inevitable diversions into Barbee Mill via 42nd & 41st would be intolerable and unsafe. 44th/ exit 7 is inadequate. WSDOT went on record during the EIS scoping process to say there were no funds available for freeway and ramp improvements, that there would not be funds in the foreseeable future, and that traffic assessments should not assume any state improvements have been made. o The applicant assumed them anyway. o As a hedge, an alternative, they proposed in the DEIS to run traffic through Kennydale to 30th St. Proposing that is absurd and irresponsible. o Proponent also mentioned desired improvements to the intersection of Sunset/Park and Lake Washington Blvd, between Coulon Park and The Landing. These would be irrelevant to traffic flow in the Quendall area. There is not room for thousands more cars per day past or through the entrance to Barbee Mill New trails to replace rails in the essentially abandoned rail ROW are a desirable residential use with significant benefits to local area residents. Pedestrian, bike and other users’ safety would be damaged by the traffic load. Sloppy work. 43rd St –the intersection with the highest impact to me and to my neighbors—is missing from the traffic data tables. When a new project is considered for the Quendall property, access to it should be driven via a new crossing over the rail right of way. Bringing traffic in and out via 43rd St, the entrance to Barbee Mill and not a convenient route to Quendall, is bad for Quendall and for Barbee. The noise and traffic impact to residents only 100 feet from the centerline of that road is high, not insignificant as the DEIS states. Build a new crossing 300 yards or more to the north, aligning with the Ripley Lane turn and with the center of the property. Make Quendall’s traffic Quendall’s problem; back them up in their own space. Seahawks Now only 100-200 employees work there, on a mostly seasonal basis. Roughly 20 acre plot, similar in size to Quendall Exhibition days traffic & crowd load: o On 15 days in August, 25,000 people visited (Seattle Times.) o In two weeks, when school was out and daily traffic was correspondingly lower, 1500-2000 people visited on peak days. o The Hawks mitigated that by letting nobody drive in & park; even their own staff and players parked offsite. o They had buses, security, and remote parking. o And traffic around Lake Washington Blvd, 43rd St and 44th St was a zoo. A normal day at Quendall would be even bigger than a Seahawks exhibition day! Above all, the location of and roads around the Quendall property do not provide the accessibility that would warrant a high density development such as the one proposed. Creating the necessary access, and using that access as proposed, would have extreme impacts on local usage and residents. Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [18] Misleading, absurd claims about the effects of Light and Glare Excerpt from Pg 1-22, Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: “Development of the Quendall Terminals site under Alternatives 1 and 2 would change the site from its existing open, partially vegetated condition to a new mixed-use development. The proposed development would represent a continuation of urban development along the Lake Washington shoreline. The proposed building height and bulk would be generally similar to surrounding uses (i.e. the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility and the planned Hawk’s Landing Hotel) and greater than other uses in the area (i.e. the Barbee Mill residential development). Certain views across the site towards Lake Washington and Mercer Island would be obstructed with the proposed development; however, view corridors towards Lake Washington and Mercer Island would be established and new viewing areas along the lake would also be provided. No significant light, glare, or shadow impacts would be anticipated.” The proponent is incorrect and, if intentional, fraudulent in its mis-statements and understatements of plainly observable facts. The applicant’s unseemly evident desire to avoid acknowledging the reality of the project’s incompatibility with its surroundings is an insult to readers, neighbors and to the city. This adverse-impacts section is false--and not even remotely supportable--for the following reasons: 1. “Surrounding” uses: the site is bounded on four sides. The DEIS cites only two to “surround” it of which one, the Hawks’ Landing hotel, would be a small fraction of one side but which does not exist. Next, the immediately adjacent neighbors at Barbee Mill are mentioned in the “other” category while it is clear there is absolutely nothing similar about the proposal to this purely residential neighborhood. The fourth surrounding neighbor is, of course, the un-mentioned lake which also has no similarities. 2. “Certain views across the site towards Lake Washington and Mercer Island would be obstructed…” is a miraculous understatement designed to obscure the obscene reality of the size of this monster. The project proposal is almost half as high as the hill leading up into Newcastle. The “certain views” are not simply the views from cars passing along Ripley Lane; this complex is bigger than the airplane factory at the industrial end of the lake. The north end of this city will have the lake and the big hill of Mercer Island erased forever. And further, views from Mercer Island to the Eastside will also be obstructed. 3. Light and glare will come at night from the lighting in and on the buildings, and from exterior lights on the roadways and surface parking areas. The property emits no light at this time, and the Seahawks use light rather efficiently. Where there is now darkness at night, the proponent will project light into adjacent homes and green spaces from as high as 90 feet above grade, but the DEIS author has the audacity to claim there would be “no impacts” anticipated. This assessment is impossible! Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [19] Regarding a Public Comment about Land Usage One commenter at the January 4 2011 public meeting spoke about the contextual history of the commercial component of the proposed land usage. He felt that north Renton was underserved by retail and commercial development and noted that a 1981 City of Renton action called for 200,000 square foot development of the Port Quendall property. Unfortunately his comment was outdated, long since overtaken by history. North Renton’s character has long since changed from industrial to residential usage. His comment contained errors in overlooking superseding local events and development projects since 1981 which, when re-examined today, would support the exact opposite conclusion, ie that the Quendall property is precisely NOT appropriate for development of the character and scale currently proposed. In 1981 Boeing’s factory was several times the size it is today and Boeing had no evident plans to shrink it. The Renton plant was still building the 727, already was building the 737, and the 757 had not even started. Shortly after the resolution the 757 began and progressed its entire life cycle, replacing the 727 in the same spot. The 737 has been redesigned twice also in the same footprint. That was King County’s jet factory. The Barbee and Quendall industrial operations were still active. There was no evidence in 1981 that the jet factory would one day transform into a commercial development. 15 years later Boeing began to vacate hundreds of acres of former factory space which quickly became The Landing. The Landing became the large shopping and apartment development that was once envisioned for north Renton, built on space that was not seen as available in 1981. Now even that has surplus available inside space, plus land not yet developed. North Renton is now over-served. A huge Quendall commercial complex no longer fits as it might have 30 years ago. It is completely inappropriate and not compatible with or similar to its surrounding area. The 30 year old plans for presuming compatibility have been superseded by residential development, and by the creation of The Landing in the former airplane manufacturing space. Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [20] Conclusion The central claim in the DEIS, that “[t]he proposed height and bulk and setbacks of development … would be consistent with the existing urban character of the area and the applicable provisions of the City of Renton regulations; therefore, no significant height and bulk or land use compatibility impacts would be anticipated,” is demonstrably and objectively false. Recommendations Deny the absurd claims of compatibility with and minimal impact to the surrounding area. Reject the EIS’s claims of such. Reject the project. Encourage the developer, or other developers, to return with proposals that are much smaller—a fraction of the currently-proposed size--and that are actually compatible with the local area. Approve nothing, not even a significantly reduced revision, until or unless credible traffic assessments are completed and appropriate improvements are made. Approve nothing until the EPA completes public processes and approvals of a viable environmental remediation plan that accounts for present hazards and hazard to persons during remediation and construction. Thank you. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-72 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments RESPONSE TO EIS ADDENDUM LETTER 11 Paul Siegmund 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. Your photo is included for the record. The transportation analysis in the DEIS and EIS Addendum used locally and nationally-accepted transportation engineering methods and practices to evaluate peak hour traffic conditions with and without the Quendall Terminals Project. Project-related mitigation measures were identified to ensure that traffic operations in the site vicinity, including level of service (LOS), queue length and travel time experience, would be within accepted standards with the project, with or without WSDOT I-405 Improvements (see FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined that the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). Photographic evidence of a single moment during the course of the morning commute does not necessarily represent traffic operations over the course of the typical planning and evaluation period of an entire hour. Given the intersection’s proximity to the interchange, a traffic collision, stalled vehicle or other event within the interchange vicinity could generate similar queues. Therefore, discrete evidence of this nature cannot be used to plan or design a project. As indicated in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially over traffic conditions with implementation of the identified project mitigation. 3. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum assumed two transportation scenarios: 1) future development of the Quendall Terminals site with the NE 44th Street/I- 405 Improvements, and 2) future development without the NE 44th Street/I-405 Improvements. Project mitigation measures were identified for both scenarios. See FEIS Chapter 1 – page 1-16 for a list of the mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative with and without I-405 Improvements. As indicated in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation. 4. Your comment is noted for the record. 5. Project mitigation measures have been identified with and without the I-405 Improvements. These mitigation measures included payment of a mitigation fee, as well as a number of other measures. A sketch of the I-405/NE 44th Street interchange and Lake Washington Boulevard conceptual improvements (without I-405 Improvements) is included in this FEIS (see Figure 2-2). In addition to channelization of Lake Washington Boulevard, these improvements would include signalization at N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard, I-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street, and I-405 northbound ramp/NE 44th Street intersections. At the I-405 northbound ramp/NE 44th Street intersection, separate northbound/southbound left turn lanes would also be constructed with the signal installation Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-73 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments In addition, in 2014 the City of Renton conducted a review of cumulative transportation impacts along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor, including the Quendall Terminals Project and five other known pipeline projects (City of Renton Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton, October 2014). The review concluded that project- specific mitigation without I-405 improvements for Quendall Terminals would be adequate in the near-term and the relocation of the future signalized access into the site from Ripley Lane to N 43rd Street should be considered. As a result, mitigation measures for the Quendall Terminals Project have been modified in this FEIS to allow the City, WSDOT, the applicant and other adjacent properties to further consider this potential relocation in future design of the interchange system (see FEIS Appendix C for details). 6. As part of the analysis in the EIS Addendum, new peak hour traffic counts were conducted at the intersection of Ripley Lane and Lake Washington Boulevard to confirm that existing traffic volumes were accurately portrayed. New traffic counts were conducted in June 2012 when the Seahawks Training Facility was at full use. This traffic count determined that “through volumes” along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor in 2012 were the same as those levels used in the DEIS analysis for existing conditions, but that southbound left turns from Ripley Lane onto Lake Washington Boulevard and then onto I-405 were higher than previous counts. As such, adjustments in the EIS Addendum were only made to existing traffic counts for these discrete movements and no justification in conducting additional counts was found given that peak directional flows along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor were consistent with previous analyses and historical traffic volumes from 2009 and 2010. The supplemental traffic review conducted for this FEIS confirmed that these traffic counts are still valid (see FEIS Appendix C for details). 7. As described in the updated transportation analysis in the EIS Addendum, vehicle queues leaving the site access intersection #4 – Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street) at Lake Washington Boulevard with the proposed project are estimated at approximately 75 to 100 feet during the AM and PM peak hours. The LOS for the stop-controlled southbound movement is expected to be LOS C/D. This determination is predicated on the assumption that balance for left turn demand from the site would occur between this egress and the signalized intersection at Ripley Lane onto Lake Washington Boulevard. 8. The EIS Addendum (Chapter 2) acknowledged that the proposed building setbacks under the Preferred Alternative would vary from those under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. The minimum setback from the southern property line would be similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2; the maximum setback would be greater than DEIS Alternative 1, but less than DEIS Alternative 2. However, the actual height/bulk/scale and view impacts on the Barbee Mill development would result from a combination of the proposed setbacks and building heights. Building heights in this portion of the site would be less under the Preferred Alternative than under the DEIS redevelopment alternatives. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2- 24) for details. 9. The visual analysis conducted for the EIS represented the visual conditions of the surrounding area at the time that the visual simulations were prepared. Six key viewpoints were selected and analyzed in the EIS Addendum for the Preferred Alternative. These viewpoints consisted of public locations, including public streets, Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-74 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments sidewalks, and a public park, and represented the views that were mentioned most frequently by commentators on the DEIS. Five of these viewpoints were also analyzed in the DEIS; a new viewpoint from Lake Washington Boulevard N was added in the EIS Addendum. It is acknowledged that construction of homes in the Barbee Mill development has continued since then. It is possible that new homes constructed in Barbee Mill would now block certain views from these public locations. 10. It is acknowledged that the proposed density of the Preferred Alternative would be greater than the adjacent Barbee Mill development. However, proposed redevelopment of the site under the Preferred Alternative would be within the density range specified by the existing COR zoning for the site. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details on the proposed density of the project. 11. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in the 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would be consistent with the COR zoning for the site, and with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details. 12. Please see FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details on the proposed density of the project and the response to Comment 8 in this letter regarding the proposed building setbacks. As noted in Chapter 2 of the EIS Addendum and Section 4.7 (Parks and Recreation), the reduction in open space area under the Preferred Alternative relative to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would primarily relate to the elimination of one of the semi-private courtyard area onsite. However, the Preferred Alternative would provide slightly more “Natural Public Open Space Areas” than the DEIS redevelopment alternatives (3.7 acres under the Preferred Alternative versus 3.4 to 3.5 acres under the DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively). And, under the Preferred Alternative approximately 1.8 acres of indoor and/or outdoor area would be provided onsite for active recreation (i.e., Frisbee, swimming pools, tot lots, bocce ball courts, exercise rooms, active recreation in courtyards, etc.), as approved by the City’s responsible public official (see Parks and Recreation mitigation measures G2 and G8 in FEIS Chapter 1). The wetland delineation that was included in the DEIS was conducted according to the methods defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Corps 2008), and DOE’s Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (DOE 1997). The method for delineating wetlands is based on the presence of three parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Hydrophytic vegetation is “the macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present.” Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-75 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments Hydric soils are “formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.” Wetland hydrology “encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface for a sufficient duration during the growing season” (DOE 1997). 13. Your comment is noted for the record. It is acknowledged that the Preferred Alternative would include 10 buildings as opposed to the 9 buildings included under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. However, the overall level of development under the Preferred Alternative would be similar, but slightly less than DEIS Alternative 2. The Preferred Alternative would include 16 fewer housing units, and 37 fewer parking spaces than DEIS Alternative 2. Retail/restaurant uses would be the same between these alternatives (see EIS Addendum Table 2-1 for details). 14. Your graphic simulation is included in the record. 15. Your comment is noted for the record. 16. Your comment is noted for the record. No decision has been made at this time regarding phasing of proposed redevelopment. However, RMC Section 4-9-200 does allow for phasing of Master Plan projects, provided a detailed sequencing plan is provided that illustrates the proposed development phases and estimated timelines. 17. DEIS Section 3.5, Land Use, identified potential construction-related impacts associated with development of the Quendall Terminals site, including emissions from construction vehicles and equipment, increased dust from construction activities, vibration associated with construction activities (including the potential installing of piles), increased noise levels, and increased traffic associated with construction vehicles and workers. Proposed redevelopment of the site would be required to comply with the applicable City of Renton standards and regulations to reduce construction-related impacts. See FEIS Chapter 1 – page 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including new construction-related mitigation measures to address potential air quality and noise impacts. 18. Please see the response to Comment 17 in this letter. 19. As stated in Chapter 2 of the EIS Addendum, the design of the Preferred Alternative responds to comments from the City of Renton Fire Department regarding emergency access along the western portion of the site. The Preferred Alternative would include a minimum 20-foot wide emergency access road along the western edge of the site, which would be surfaced in crushed rock or grass-crete to support the requirements of emergency vehicles (see Transportation mitigation measures H8 in FEIS Chapter 1). 20. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 11 in this letter and FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2- 24) for details on the compatibility of the proposed project with surrounding development. 21. Your comments are noted for the record. The attachments to this letter are addressed as part of the responses to DEIS Letter 66. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-77 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments RESPONSE TO EIS ADDENDUM LETTER 12 Anne Woodley 1. Please see FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topics Areas (Transportation – page 2-10) for additional analysis of the project’s potential impacts on Park Avenue N (the Kennydale neighborhood) and the N 30th Street/I-405 Interchange that was completed to address this comment. That analysis concluded that the project would not be expected to generate substantial cut-through traffic through the Kennydale neighborhood or result in significant impacts on the operation of the interchange. 2. Please see the response to Comment 1 in this letter. As indicated on page 3.9-5 of the DEIS, no public transit service is currently provided to the Quendall Terminals site. The closest transit service in the site area is provided via a dial-a-ride service area fixed route service in the vicinity of the N 30th Street/ I-405 interchange. Future potential public transportation in the site vicinity could include Bus Rapid Transit on I-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT, with a flyer stop at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange. An identified project mitigation measure would include promotion of a multimodal transportation network by providing site amenities (i.e., planting strip, street lighting, etc.) and access to future transit zones on Lake Washington Boulevard and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange to encourage and accommodate public transportation access in the future (see Transportation mitigation measure H9 in FEIS Chapter 1). 3. DEIS Chapter 2 provided a breakdown of impervious and pervious surface areas under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. DEIS Section 3.1 (Earth) provided an analysis of potential impacts of increased impervious surface areas on groundwater conditions, and DEIS Section 3.2 (Critical Areas) on wetlands and Lake Washington; potential impacts under the Preferred Alternative are anticipated to be similar. The DEIS and EIS Addendum concluded that with implementation of proposed mitigation measures, including installation of a permanent stormwater control system designed in accordance with the applicable stormwater regulations and approved by the City of Renton, no significant adverse impacts on water resources would be expected. 4. See the response to Comment 3 in this letter. The permanent stormwater control system would include water quality treatment facilities to collect and treat stormwater runoff from pollution-generating surfaces (i.e., roadways and surface parking areas) prior to discharge to Lake Washington and would be designed in accordance with applicable stormwater regulations. As a result, no significant water quality impacts would be expected. 5. DEIS Section 3.7 (Aesthetics/Light and Glare) included an analysis of potential light and glare impacts associated with redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. Potential light/glare impacts on land uses to the west of the site (i.e., Lake Washington and Mercer Island) were included in the analysis. Potential light impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative are anticipated to be similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. Project mitigation measures have been identified to mitigate potential light impacts, including directing light downward to minimize impacts on adjacent uses and the shoreline of Lake Washington. Glazing materials with low reflectivity and shading devices would also be incorporated into façade design to minimize glare impacts on surrounding uses. With implementation of these measures, significant light and glare impacts would not be Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-78 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including light and glare-related mitigation measures. 6. If approved by EPA in the Record of Decision (ROD) or any Natural Resource Damages (NRD) settlement, the proposed trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area along Lake Washington would be open and available for public use. If EPA’s ROD or the NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail would be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road. Project mitigation measures have been identified to provide public parking onsite for trail users, as well as site amenities along the trail and other recreation areas, including tables, benches, and interpretive signage. Public parking would be provided as required by the Renton Municipal Code and the Shoreline Master Program, and would be identified as public by signage or other means approved by the City. 7. The City asked EPA if the post-remediation conditions represented in the DEIS are reasonable given the expected general outcome of the ROD. EPA responded that the conditions are reasonable, with an increase of minimum shoreline setback area to 100 feet from the lake edge (see DEIS Letter 4). The Preferred Alternative incorporates EPA’s recommended shoreline setback. EPA is required to consider whether the remediation alternative to be included in the ROD is protective of reasonably anticipated land uses following cleanup. EPA is planning to consider the land uses proposed under the Preferred Alternative during consideration of the selected remediation alternative. EPA will be involving the public throughout the cleanup process prior to development of the ROD. For concerns about EPA community involvement, please contact EPA’s Community Involvement Coordinator at 206-553-6689. 8. EPA is required to consider whether the remediation alternative to be included in the ROD is protective of reasonably anticipated land uses following cleanup and is planning to consider the land uses proposed under the Preferred Alternative during consideration of the selected remediation alternative. As described in EIS Addendum Section 4.7, Parks and Recreation, the Preferred Alternative would include a total of approximately 10.6 acres of ”Natural Open Space Areas” and “Other Related Areas”. The approximately 3.7 acres of “Natural Public Open Space Areas” would include a trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area along Lake Washington (if authorized by EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement) and natural areas. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail would be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings, and could be combined with the fire access road. Approximately 6.9 acres of “Other Related Areas” would be provided, including landscaping and sidewalks located throughout the site that would provide a connection between the trail and Lake Washington Boulevard and other areas beyond the site (including the May Creek Parkway and a future connection to Cougar Mountain). The “Other Related Areas” may or may not meet the City’s standards, regulations, and procedures for open space. Approximately 1.8 acres of indoor and/or outdoor area would be provided onsite for active recreation (i.e., Frisbee, swimming pools, tot lots, bocce ball courts, exercise rooms, active recreation in courtyards, etc.), as approved by the City’s responsible public official (see Parks and Recreation mitigation measures G2 and G8 in FEIS Chapter 1). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-79 Chapter 3 – EIS Addendum Comments An alternative where the entire site is converted to a park was not evaluated in this EIS as it would not meet the applicant’s objectives for the site (see DEIS page 2-8 for the applicant’s objectives). Per SEPA 197-11-440(5)(b), “EIS alternatives must feasibly attain or approximate a proposal’s objective, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation.” 9. Your comment is noted for the record. Proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site would provide amenities such as a trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area (if authorized by EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement) and natural open space areas that would be available for use by the public. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail would be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings, and could be combined with the fire access road. DEIS COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-82 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 1 City of Mercer Island 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes mitigation measures to address potential light impacts on surrounding areas, as well as mitigation measures for building modulation that would enhance the aesthetic character of the proposed development (see FEIS Chapter 1– pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including mitigation measures to address aesthetics/light and glare). These mitigation measures are consistent with those recommended in this comment. o MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE Fisheries Division 39015 - 172nd Avenue SE . Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 Phone: (253) 939-3311 . Fax: (253) 931-0752 January 25,2011 Ms. Vanessa Dolbee City of Renton Planning Department 1055 S. Grady Way, Sixth Floor Renton, WA 98055 RE: Quendall Terminals, LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SA-M, SM, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Ms. Dolbee: The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division (MITFD) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed redevelopment project at the Quendall Terminals. We are forwarding the attached comments in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe's fisheries resources. This proj ect proposes to redevelop 21.46 acres of a Superfund site located along the Lake Washington shoreline and an area near I -405. Thè action alternatives, Alternatives 1 and 2, propose to construct 708 to 800 residential units, 0-245,000 square feet of offce; 21, 600 square feet of retail; and 9,000 square feet ofrestaurant. As noted, the majority ofthe project site wil undergo remediation and mitigation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; i.e., Superfund) administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study report process leading to a Proposed Plan and ultimately a Record of Decision specifying clean-up actions has begun but is not yet completed. Per EPA's 13 January 2011 letter in response to this DEIS, they anticipate the Record of Decision (ROD) to be issued in mid-2012. The DEIS assumes a specific baseline against which the DEIS evaluates the proposed action alternatives and the no-action alternative. It is premature to make assumptions about the environmental baseline since there is no remedial action yet chosen for this Superfund Site. The details of the remediation work, including the nature and extent of the upland cleanup, sediment cleanup, land use restrictions to protect any cleanup, stormwater outfalls, setbacks and mitigation work and the proposed trail are all elements anticipated to be discussed in EPA's ROD (EPA 13 January 2011 letter). As a result, the MITFD is unable to make comprehensive specific comments on the project's proposed filling, mitigation, shoreline restoration, trail, and stormwater outfalls because the remediation plan and details are unkown. We wil evaluate the project proposals in more detail once the remediation remedy is finalized and reserve the right to MITFD Comments on Quendall Terminals DEIS Page 2 1/25/2011 provide additional comments accordingly. Furthermore, we recommend that the environmental review process for the redevelopment project be put on hold until the ROD has been issued by EPA so that the details of the environmental baseline are known and the action alternatives can be sufficiently analyzed in a subsequent environmental review document (i.e. Final EIS or Supplemental DEIS). While we are unable to provide specific comprehensive comments on the project action alternatives' proposed filling, mitigation, shoreline restoration, trail, and stormwater outfalls, we do have some initial comments on the DEIS that should be addressed in the subsequent environmental review documents once the remediation action is chosen to be implemented at the site. These initial comments are attached for your review and consideration. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposaL. Please call Karen Walter at 253-876- 3116 if you have any questions regarding these comments. Glen St Amant Habitat Program Manager cc: Lynda Priddy, EPA Remedial Project Manager Jessica Winter, NOAA Stewart Reinbold, WDFW Barbara Nightingale, WA Department of Ecology, NW Region MITFD Comments on Quendall Terminals DEIS Page 3 1/25/2011 Preliminary Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Quendall Terminals 1. The potential to construct piers and docks to provide moorage and access to Lake Washington is not addressed in this DEIS. Based on our experience with the Barbee Mil plat, its DEIS and subsequent permitting, it seems highly likely that lake access and moorage may be proposed at this site in the future and should be analyzed now as part of this environmental review so potential site,specific and cumulative impacts can be adequately assessed. Discussion of this issue is also contingent on the requirements by EP A in the shoreline area to ensure that the cleanup is successful over the long-term. 2. Since the City of Renton has adopted its revised Shoreline Master Program on September 27,2010, the environmental review should include an alternative that is consistent with these shoreline revisions as they are more protective of the wetlands associated with the Lake Washington shoreline, as well as the shoreline itself. For example, if the 2010 Shoreline Master Program were followed on the project site, wetlands A, F, D and potentially others would be required to have at least 75 to 100 foot buffer around them per Renton's code 4-30-090(D)(2)(d)(iv)(c). Instead, the project proposes to establish a 50 foot buffer on Wetlands A and D and allow for some buffer averaging on Wetland D, which wil reduce portions to 25 feet. Furthermore, the newly adopted Shoreline- Master Program regulations would require a 100 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark of Lake Washington, not the 50 foot setback as proposed by Alternatives l'and 2 in the DEIS. 3. The DEIS should discuss potential lighting effects to Lake Washington and the restored wetlands from adjacent built uses. Exterior building lighting, offce building lighting, parking lot lighting, and pedestrian walkway/trail lighting should be directed downward to avoid lighting the lakeshore and wetland buffers and potentially Lake Washington. 4. On page 2- 10, the DEIS notes that currently surface runoff infiltrates or is conveyed to Lake Washington via surface flow or swales. If the project fills the majority of the existing wetlands, pipes treated stormwater directly to Lake Washington without detention, and constructs berms around the mitigation wetlands, then the subsequent environmental review document should analyze the likelihood of successful wetland reestablishment/mitigation on the project site. 5. The subsequent environmental review document should discuss the potential for stormwater discharges and outfalls to adversely affect the remediation. Any fill in Lake Washington for stormwater outfalls should be quantified and impacts and necessary mitigation measures discussed in the document. 6. The subsequent environmental review document should discuss the fate of the former creosote plant water supply welL. This well is described on page 3.1-6. We recommend MITFD Comments on Quendall Terminals DEIS Page 4 1/25/2011 that this well be decommissioned and any existing water rights relinquished as a permit condition for the project. 7. As noted on page 1-3, the project proposes to use 53,000 - 133,000 cubic yards offilL. The DEIS also notes on page 3.1-7 that large amounts of fill placed at the site could induce settlement in the soil caps and underlying sediments, as well as, mobilization of contaminants present beneath the caps. The DEIS also concludes that these impacts are not anticipated because the project does not require a "large" amount offilL. There needs to be further analysis to indicate why the proposed amount of fill is not sufficiently large enough to cause potential impacts to the soil caps. EPA should be consulted to see if they agree that the amount of fill wil not cause settlement in the soil cap and underlying sediments and/or mobilize contaminants beneath the caps. 8. The subsequent environmental review document should include a table that summarizes the following information for each wetland: classification, size, regulated buffer, and proposed filling. There should also be a table that summarizes the proposed mitigation for impacts to each impacted wetland. 9. At a minimum, the project should follow Ecology's mitigation ratios for fillng on-site wetlands. As described in the DEIS, the project proposes to use a1.5:1 ratio for all wetlands, except for those that are exempt from critical area regulation (e.g. Wetland G) which is proposed to be mitigated at a 1: 1 ratio per City of Renton critical areas regulations (RMC 4-3-050.C(f)), due to its small size and physical isolation. 10. The subsequent environmental review document should analyze the potential for the future I-405 widening and NE 44th Street interchange improvement project needed for this project to adversely affect this proposed mitigation site at Wetland J. (see page 3.2-4 and Section 3.9). If improvements at I-405 and NE 44th are needed and may impact the isolated property and wetlands I and J, then the subsequent environmental review document should evaluate these potential impacts as direct impacts from the project to avoid phasing the environmental review of potential project impacts inappropriately. 11. On page 3.2-6, the DEIS notes that roof runoff (considered to be non-pollution generating) would be collected and discharged directly to the lake separately. However, if zinc materials are used in roofing components (i.e. gutters and downspouts), then there could be pollution generated from roofs. In addition, there may be fertilizers and pesticides used to manage the landscape areas that wil run off the site as stormwater. The FEIS should discuss the potential for the project to generate pollution from all potential sources; how pollution will be avoided, and the level of treatment for stormwater. Finally, the FEIS should analyze the potential cumulative impacts from additional stormwater discharges to Lake Washington and to the sediment cleanup. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-87 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 2 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 1. EPA has indicated that the environmental baseline (post-remediation conditions) assumptions represented in the DEIS are reasonable given the expected general outcome of the Record of Decision (ROD), with an increase of the minimum shoreline setback area to 100 feet from the lake edge (see DEIS Letter 4). The Preferred Alternative incorporates EPA’s recommended shoreline setback. A new mitigation measure has been added to this FEIS indicating that in the event that the issued EPA ROD is different than what is assumed for this EIS, the City reviewing official shall determine whether the applicant shall be required to prepare additional SEPA review for the project (see mitigation measure C10 in FEIS Chapter 1). See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Environmental Health – page 2-19) for details on the relationship between the site cleanup/remediation and proposed redevelopment 2. The City placed the SEPA environmental review process for the Quendall Terminals on hold for approximately one year until EPA issued a letter regarding the environmental baseline assumptions represented in the EIS. As indicated in the response to Comment 1 in this letter, in the event that the issued EPA ROD is different than what is assumed for this EIS, the applicant could be required to update the SEPA review for the project. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Environmental Health – page 2-19) for details on the relationship between the site cleanup/remediation and proposed redevelopment 3. Your comment is noted for the record. DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, and the Preferred Alternatives do not include piers, docks, or moorage along Lake Washington. Therefore, these potential uses were not analyzed in the DEIS and EIS Addendum. Any restrictions on the use of Lake Washington adjacent to the Quendall Terminals site will be stipulated in EPA’s ROD or any Natural Resource Damages (NRD) settlement for cleanup/remediation of the site. If the development of piers or docks is proposed at a later date, such development would be subject to a new or supplemental SEPA review. 4. In response to comments received on the DEIS, and in coordination with and input from EPA and the City of Renton, the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes a 100-foot setback from Lake Washington, consistent with the City’s current Shoreline Management Program. The shoreline area would accommodate future wetlands, as well as buffers and setbacks. Final, detailed plans for the re-establishment of wetlands and their buffers onsite would be developed in accordance with EPA’ ROD or any NRD settlement prior to redevelopment. 5. Section 3.1 (Critical Areas) of the EIS Addendum included an analysis of potential lighting impacts on critical areas and identified mitigation measures to minimize those impacts (see FEIS Chapter 1– pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including mitigation measures to address aesthetics/light and glare). 6. The DEIS assessed the development of wetland functions on the project site assuming that surface runoff no longer infiltrates into the ground, and based on the conceptual stormwater conveyance design described in the DEIS (the proposed stormwater design is assumed to be similar under the Preferred Alternative). Based on observations at other similar mitigation projects constructed in the region, productive wetland communities are anticipated to reestablish relatively rapidly at the mitigation locations. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-88 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments The ROD or any NRD settlement will likely include a requirement of monitoring and contingency responses to ensure that EPA’s cleanup mitigation performance standards are achieved. 7. The ROD and subsequent EPA review requirements to be developed as part of the Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) will ensure that stormwater discharge designs and other site development activities do not adversely affect the effectiveness of the final cleanup remedy for the site. No fill in Lake Washington is anticipated to be needed for the stormwater outfalls. 8. The former creosote plant water supply well was located during past site investigation work and the existing well cap temporarily removed to check the well’s head condition (it is a flowing well) and depth. At the present time, the well remains capped. The well will be properly decommissioned during site cleanup and remediation under the oversight of EPA. The well has been covered over and not in use for approximately 30 years and, therefore, any water right would have been relinquished. 9. As part of the cleanup/remediation process, an OMMP would be developed that would ensure that site development activities would not adversely affect the final cleanup remedy for the site. 10. Wetland fill would be required for cleanup/remediation of the site. The impact analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum solely address impacts that could occur due to post- cleanup redevelopment of the site, and assume an existing/baseline condition subsequent to cleanup/remediation. See DEIS Section 3.2, Critical Areas, and EIS Addendum Sections 3.1 and 4.2 for an analysis of the potential impacts of the redevelopment alternatives on the wetlands that would be retained/re-established with remediation. 11. As noted in the DEIS and EIS Addendum, the proposed Quendall Terminals project would not result in any direct impacts to retained/re-established wetlands on the site and as such, mitigation ratios for filling onsite wetlands would not be applicable. 12. Your comment is noted for the record. Should the future I-405/NE 44th Street interchange project be developed, the potential impacts to Wetland J would be analyzed as part of the separate environmental review for that project. If and when that project is developed, WSDOT would be required to mitigate any potential impacts to wetlands as part of the project. 13. As described in DEIS Section 3.2, Critical Areas, and EIS Addendum Sections 3.1 and 4.2, Critical Areas, the proposed stormwater management system would be designed in accordance with applicable stormwater regulations. This system would include water quality treatment facilities to collect and treat stormwater runoff from pollution-generating surfaces (i.e., roadways and surface parking areas) prior to discharge to Lake Washington. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-91 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 3 South End Gives Back 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. Your comment is noted for the record. Per WAC 197-11-440(4)(b), reasonable alternatives analyzed in an EIS must meet the applicant’s objectives, but at a lower environmental cost; a no action alternative shall also be evaluated in the EIS and compared to the other alternatives. DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 meet the applicant’s objectives (listed on DEIS page 2-8). Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative based on comments on the DEIS, and continued coordination with and input from EPA and the City of Renton. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes modifications to enhance the compatibility of proposed redevelopment 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). 3. Your comment is noted for the record. As discussed in FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24), it is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the 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., in the 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., in Barbee Mill). Development under the Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the City of Renton’s plans, policies, and regulations, particularly the site’s COR designation/classification, despite the project’s overall scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single family buildings. With implementation of the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative in FEIS Chapter 1, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. 4. Your comment is noted for the record. Additional analysis of the applicant’s Preferred Alternative was provided in the EIS Addendum and this FEIS. 5. Your comment is noted for the record. The DEIS and EIS Addendum included analyses of environmental elements noted in the comment, including Earth, Critical Areas, Environmental Health, Energy/Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land and Shoreline Use, Aesthetics/Views, Parks and Recreation, and Transportation. 6. Your comment is noted for the record. Additional analysis of the applicant’s Preferred Alternative was provided in the EIS Addendum and this FEIS. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-94 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 4 United States Environmental Protection Agency (letter 1) 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. Your comment is noted for the record. 3. In response to this comment (as well as other comments on the DEIS, and coordination with and input from EPA and the City of Renton), a Preferred Alternative was developed and analyzed in the EIS Addendum that maintains a 100-foot minimum/150-foot maximum setback from the shoreline onsite (compared to the 50-foot minimum/225-foot maximum setback analyzed in the DEIS under Alternatives 1 and 2). The minimum setback would be consistent with EPA’s recommendation and the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (2011). 4. Please see the response to Comment 3 in this letter. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-99 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 5 United States Environmental Protection Agency (letter 2) 1. Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS and the submittal of this comment letter, EPA submitted a follow up comment letter (dated March 13, 2012, and included in this FEIS as DEIS Letter 4) regarding the EIS environmental baseline condition and the expected outcome of the Record of Decision (ROD). In the follow up letter, EPA recommended that the proposal include a 100-foot area from the shoreline to be designated for future wetlands and associated buffers/setbacks. With this proposed modification, EPA concluded that the baseline condition would be reasonable. As a result, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative, analyzed in the EIS Addendum and in this FEIS, which includes a 100-foot setback from the shoreline. 2. Your comment is noted for the record. 3. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 1 in this letter. 4. The DEIS and EIS Addendum assumed that site remediation will result in placement of a soil cap over the entire Quendall Terminals site. While the final specification and extent of the cap will not be determined until EPA issues its ROD, or any Natural Resource Damages (NRD) settlement is reached, the assumption represents a worst case scenario from the EIS perspective, since the ROD or any NRD settlement may not require a cap and associated development restrictions in portions of the site. 5. Please see the response to Comment 4 in this letter. 6. Your comment is noted for the record. The specific location of stormwater outfalls has not been determined at this time and would be located to avoid direct impacts to wetland areas. 7. It is acknowledged that setback distances for various elements of the site redevelopment will be finalized after the cleanup has been implemented. The DEIS and EIS Addendum used reasonable shoreline setback assumptions at the time these documents were prepared for buildings, roads, parking, and wetlands that represented a worst-case scenario from an EIS perspective. The building setbacks from the lake assumed under the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum responded to comments from EPA and others on the DEIS. A new mitigation measure has been added to this FEIS indicating that in the event that the ROD issued by EPA is different than what is assumed for this EIS, the City reviewing official shall determine whether the applicant shall be required to prepare additional SEPA review for the project (see Environmental Health mitigation measure C10 in FEIS Chapter 1). 8. Your comment is noted for the record. 9. The DEIS and EIS Addendum used reasonable worst-case assumptions for mitigation, based on the Quendall/Baxter mitigation analysis memorandum that formed the basis for earlier mitigation decisions made by DOE for similar cleanup actions in the immediate site area. In the event that the mitigation ratios are significantly different, the City of Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-100 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments Renton will determine whether such a change would warrant preparation of a Supplemental EIS or an EIS Addendum. 10. The DEIS and EIS Addendum assumed that redevelopment would not include any below-grade excavations for parking or basements; however, deep foundation supports and utility excavations would likely be required. As noted in the DEIS and EIS Addendum, institutional controls would be followed to prevent the alteration of the soil cap without prior EPA approval (see Environmental Health mitigation measure C3 in Final EIS Chapter 1). 11. Your comment is noted for the record. In subsequent correspondence with EPA, it has been indicated that the ROD will not be approved until 2016. 12. Your comment is noted for the record. 13. Your comment is noted for the record. 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address: PO Box 48343 Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360) 586-3065 Fax Number (360) 586-3067 Website: www.dahp.wa.gov February 9, 2011 Ms. Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner CED 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 020911-10-KI Property: Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, EIS, ECF. BSP, SA, Draft EIS Quendell Terminals Re: Archaeology-Draft EIS Comments Dear Ms. Dolbee: Thank you for contacting the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). The above referenced project has been reviewed on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer. . The Renton area has a history of archaeological finds during construction project. The Draft EIS does not address cultural resources. Cultural resources should be addressed as part of the Affected Environments section. There is ethnographic evidence that a precontact Duwamish village was present in the project area and an Indian trail leading to the project area and vicinity is shown on historic maps. In addition, the project area is depicted in the Statewide Archaeological Predictive Model as having the highest probability for containing precontact archaeological resources. A cultural resources survey of the project are and vicinity conducted in 1997 by Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services, was unable to adequately survey the project area because of the presence of fill and impervious surfaces. Please be aware that archaeological sites are protected from knowing disturbance on both public and private lands in Washington States. Both RCW 27.44 and RCW 27.53.060 require that a person obtain a permit from our Department before excavating, removing, or altering Native American human remains or archaeological resources in Washington. Failure to obtain a permit is punishable by civil fines and other penalties under RCW 27.53.095, and by criminal prosecution under RCW 27.53.090. Chapter 27.53.095 RCW allows the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation to issue civil penalties for the violation of this statute in an amount up to five thousand dollars, in addition to site restoration costs and investigative costs. Also, these remedies do not prevent concerned tribes from undertaking civil action in state or federal court, or law enforcement agencies from undertaking criminal investigation or prosecution. Chapter 27.44.050 RCW allows the affected Indian Tribe to undertake civil action apart from any criminal prosecution if burials are disturbed. We request that cultural resources be addressed, by a professional archaeologist or environmental or cultural resources firm that has professional archaeologists on staff, as part of the final EIS. Mitigation 2 measure may consist of professional archaeological monitoring under a monitoring and inadvertent discovery plan approved by DAHP and the Tribes, and/or further survey using heavy machinery that can penetrate fill soils and impervious surfaces. If further survey is the chosen mitigation, DAHP will need to see the original survey report in addition to the summarized version of the survey that will become part of the EIS. All survey should be completed prior to construction activities. Archaeological survey in tandem with construction work has not proven to be an effective means of protecting cultural resources and has led to violations of RCW 27.53 on other projects. Complete cultural resources survey reports must be sent to DAHP and the affected Tribes prior to the final EIS, and prior to any ground disturbing activities commencing, on any part of the project. Archaeological site inventory forms, if applicable, must be submitted to DAHP in advance of the final report, and Smithsonian trinomials (site numbers) must be incorporated into the final report text. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archaeologist (360) 586-3088 gretchen.kaehler@dahp.wa.gov cc. Laura Murphy, Archaeologist, Muckleshoot Tribe Cecile Hansen, Chairwoman, Duwamish Tribe Phil LeTourneau, King County Historic Preservation Program Dennis Lewarch, Archaeologist, Suquamish Tribe Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-103 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 6 Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 1. A cultural resource assessment was conducted for the EIS Addendum. An analysis of potential cultural resource impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative was included in that document (see EIS Addendum Section 4.9, Cultural Resources, and Appendix F for details). 2. Your comment is noted for the record. Mitigation measures for potential cultural resource impacts have been identified for the Preferred Alternative, including implementation of a monitoring plan and inadvertent discovery plan. See FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of the mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including cultural resource-related mitigation measures. 3. You comment is noted for the record. 4. Please see the responses to Comments 1 and 2 in this letter. The cultural resource assessment was prepared by Cultural Resource Consultants who has professional archaeologists on staff. 5. You comment is noted for the record. Further survey of the site was not recommended as part of the cultural resources assessment. 6. Your comment is noted for the record. 7. A copy of the cultural resources assessment was sent to Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and affected Tribes and is included in EIS Addendum Appendix F. Message from "Nightingale, Barbara (ECY)" <bnig461@ECY.WA.GOV> on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 08:34:05 ‐0800 ‐‐‐‐‐ To: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> Subject: Comments on Draft DEIS Port Quendall Vanessa, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the December 2010 Draft DEIS for the Quendall Terminals proposal. Although, we appreciate the work that has gone into this proposal, Ecology has concerns about both Alternatives 1 and 2. In summary, both alternatives are inconsistent with Renton’s September 27, 2010 (Resolution 4067) regarding both the wetland regulations and the Reach C‐specific vegetation conservation regulations of the locally‐adopted SMP. Patrick McGraner (425‐649‐ 4447), Ecology Wetlands Specialist, provides a brief summary of five (5) Ecology concerns regarding the proposed buffers that neither meet state wetland buffer standards nor the locally‐adopted SMP wetland buffer standards for this site. I have also added a comment on the vegetation conservation inconsistencies of both Alternatives 1 and 2, respective to the locally‐adopted SMP (Resolution 4067). In brief summary of concerns with the DEIS for Port Quendall, Patrick McGraner offers the following comments: 1) The proposed plan for EPA cleanup/remediation appears to include a portion of the compensatory wetland mitigation for wetland fills within the shoreline on a wetland that lies outside of the shoreline jurisdiction – Wetland J. This wetland is on a different parcel that lies more than 500 ft. away from the OHWM of the lake bounded on East by I‐405 and Seahawks Way and the railroad tracks on the west. Ecology does not consider this to be a suitable mitigation site to compensate for impacts along the shoreline. 2) Figure 2‐12 shows the prospective wetland/restoration for CERCLA remediation including the proposed wetland creation on Wetland J mentioned above. In addition, this figure shows resultant buffers that do not meet current standards for wetland buffers per BAS. These wetlands were rated using both the City of Renton’s 2010 CAO and the Department of Ecology’s rating system. All the wetlands onsite met the criteria for Category III wetlands per Ecology’s rating system, except for Wetland D (Category II) and Wetlands C and H (Category IV) per page 3.2‐2. 3) The proposed replacement mitigation ratios of 1.5:1 as discussed on page 3.2‐3 is not consistent with the current standards per Ecology’s guidance as found in Table 8C‐11 – Mitigation ratios for western Washington found in Appendix 8‐C, Wetlands in Washington State ‐‐ Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands, Final, April 2005 – Ecology Publication #05‐06‐008. This guidance has been adopted for use by federal agencies for actions taken within western Washington. 4) The buffer widths on the proposed remediated wetland areas should be consistent with those that were recently adopted in the City of Renton’s SMP update. Ecology reviewed the buffer widths in the adopted SMP update and found them to be consistent with Ecology’s buffer guidance as found in Appendix 8‐C, Wetlands in Washington State ‐‐ Volume 2. 5) The DEIS impact baseline is premised upon the acceptance and approval of the proposed remediation plan/mitigation plan by EPA that is depicted on Figure 2‐12. Due to the issues listed in items 1‐4 above, Ecology could not support either Alternative 1 or 2 because the designs are predicated upon a baseline that is not deemed to meet critical acceptable standards for compensatory wetland mitigation within the shoreline jurisdiction/western Washington. In addition to the above concerns identified by Patrick, I offer the following: 6) The September 2010 locally‐adopted SMP requires: (per RMC 4‐3‐090 F.1.l ‐ Lake Washington Reach C‐ SMP Exhibit D‐114) that “If areas redevelop, the full 100‐foot buffer of native vegetation shall be provided, except where water‐dependent uses are located.” The proposed Alternatives 1 and 2 do not meet this standard. This is redevelopment in Reach C and, therefore, requires a full 100‐foot buffer of native vegetation. Ecology will also submit a formal letter with these comments. Thank you again for this opportunity. Barbara Nightingale, Regional Shoreline Planner Department of Ecology Shorelands and environmental Assistance 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-106 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 7 Washington State Department of Ecology (email) 1. Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative to respond in part to comments from EPA and DOE. The Preferred Alternative includes a 100-foot minimum setback from the shoreline, which would be consistent with EPA’s recommendations and the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (2011). 2. Your comment is noted for the record. Wetland restoration adjacent to Wetland J is intended to mitigate for impacts to wetlands that are not directly connected or adjacent to Lake Washington. While some impacts to wetlands within the shoreline zone are mitigated at Wetland J, this component of the mitigation is not intended to compensate for impacts to shoreline wetlands, but for wetlands that are removed from the shoreline and surrounded by uplands. Also, mitigation at Wetland J is on the same tax parcel as the wetland impacts. 3. The Preferred Alternative includes a 100-foot minimum setback from the shoreline that would be consistent with EPA’s recommendations and the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (2011). Wetland buffers are not specifically shown on the site plan for the Preferred Alternative at this point. Final, detailed plans for the retention/re- establishment of wetlands and their buffers onsite will be developed in accordance with EPA’s Record of Decision (ROD) or as part of any Natural Resource Damages (NRD) settlement as part of the remediation process, prior to redevelopment. It is assumed that the wetland buffers would support and be protective of hydrology, water quality, and habitat functions. The buffers would generally be designed to provide maximum habitat function, as the wetlands are not expected to provide significant hydrology functions and development would be low impact with minimal stormwater flow into the wetlands. Similarly, water quality functions are not expected to be significant due to low impact development that provides appropriate stormwater treatment. 4. Please see the response to Comment 3 in this letter. The final wetland mitigation ratios would be as specified by EPA in the ROD or any NRD settlement for cleanup/remediation of the site. 5. The Preferred Alternative includes a 100-foot minimum setback from the shoreline that would be consistent with EPA’s recommendations and the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (2011). The shoreline area would accommodate future wetlands, as well as buffers and setbacks. Final, detailed plans for the re-establishment of wetlands and their buffers onsite would be developed in coordination with EPA; these plans would be reviewed and approved by EPA prior to implementation through a separate process. 6. The baseline assumptions represent a probable outcome of the remediation and cleanup plan for the Quendall Terminals site. Modifications made under the Preferred Alternative (i.e., 100-foot setback from the shoreline) would be consistent with EPA recommendations and the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (2011). 7. Please see the response to Comment 1 in this letter. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-109 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 8 Washington State Department of Ecology (letter) 1. Please see the response to Comment 1 in DEIS Letter 7 2. Please see the response to Comment 2 in DEIS Letter 7 3. Please see the response to Comment 3 in DEIS Letter 7 4. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 4 in DEIS Letter 7 5. Please see the response to Comment 5 in DEIS Letter 7 6. Please see the response to Comment 6 in DEIS Letter 7 7. Please see the response to Comment 7 in DEIS Letter 7 January 4, 2010 Vanessa Dolbee City of Renton Development Services 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, EIS, ECF, BSP, SM, SA-M, BSP SR 405 MP 7.47 (NE 44 th Ramps vicinity) Dear Ms. Dolbee: The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has reviewed the Draft EIS – Transportation Section and the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix H) for the subject project and we offer the following comments: 1. Planned Transportation Facilities (DEIS page 3.9-5, Appendix H page 11): for clarification and LOS calculation verification purposes, please be more specific on the WSDOT I-405 improvements elements accompanying with a conceptual sketch of the planned improvements (i.e. “relocating both NB and SB ramps with additional through and turn-lane” are too general). 2. Trip Distribution and Assignment (page 3.9-7) and Figure 8 (Appendix H): the trip distribution assumption stated in the report: “Given significant freeway/interchange congestion forecasted at the I-405/NE 44th Street interchange without I-405 Improvements, traffic assignments to and from the south of the site are not forecasted to utilize the adjacent interchange, but instead would access I-405 at NE 30th Street and travel on parallel corridors” is unrealistic. Due to the close proximity of the project with the NE 44th St interchange, and allowing the left-turn out movement at Ripley Lane/ N 44th St, a large percentage of the 20% distributed to Burnett Ave N and NE 30th St interchange and a portion of the 10% distributed southbound on Lake WA Blvd N to Park Ave N will access SR405 via NE 44th St instead. Based on the current channelization at the NE 44th interchange, the movements to the south I-405 are unrestricted (i.e. free SB on-ramp RT movement). Please revisit the project trip distribution assumptions and revise. All associated project assignment and LOS calculations should also be updated. 3. Figure 8 and Figure 10 (Appendix H): under the two scenarios, without and with I-405 improvements, why are the distribution percentages to the eastside of SR405 via Lincoln Ave NE different (10% vs. 5%)? In either scenarios, the trip distribution to Lincoln Ave NE should be the same (5% is more realistic) as this is a local street that should not alter any traffic patterns. 1 2 3 DEIS Letter 9 SR 405 (NE 44th vicinity) Quendall Terminals Page 2 of 2 \\KIRKLAND\Shared\BCG Shared Documents\Quendall Terminals\FEIS\DEIS Comments\Original Letters\WSDOT (letter).doc 4. As previously commented on the Draft Traffic Impact Analysis, for better visualization of the proposed mitigation measures, please include conceptual channelization plans NE 44th St / N 44th St mainline and site accesses, with and without I-405 improvements. Coordination with Hawks Landing’s access plan is a must due to potential conflicts. Note that any channelization proposals within WSDOT Limited Access will require Channelization Plan review and approval. 5. Required/Proposed Mitigation Measures – Without I-405 Improvements – Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 (DEIS page 3.9-20): the proposed traffic signals at the intersections of the I-405 NB and SB ramp intersections and at the intersection of Ripley Lane N/Lake WA Blvd need to be interconnected/coordinated as well as well planned channelization elements. The signal operations at Ripley Lane N/Lake WA Blvd intersections should not be impacting the operations of the I-405 NB and SB ramp intersections, especially the I-405 SB off-ramp movement. 6. To determine the Project’s mitigation measures sufficiency, LOS and delay results must be provided in the report (in tabular format) for the 2015 With Project with Mitigation option(s). Note that mitigations must be provided to keep the operations above the LOS threshold. LOS threshold for I-405 (Highways of Statewide Significance) is LOS D. Where the LOS is already below the applicable threshold, the pre-development LOS and delay is the condition that must be preserved. 7. Due to the anticipated high level of project impacts on State highway system, please provide electronic traffic simulation models for all alternatives (Synchro and SimTraffic) for verification purposes. If you have any questions, or require additional information please contact Felix Palisoc of our Developer Services section by phone at 206-440-4713, or via e-mail at palisof@wsdot.wa.gov. Sincerely, Ramin Pazooki Local Agency and Development Services Manager RP:fsp cc: Day file / Project File R. Roberts, MS 120 4 5 6 7 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-112 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 9 Washington State Department of Transportation 1. Mitigation measures have been identified for the project with and without the WSDOT I- 405 Improvements. These mitigation measures include payment of a mitigation fee, as well as a number of other measures (see FEIS Chapter 1 - pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). A sketch of the I-405/NE 44th Street interchange and Lake Washington Boulevard conceptual improvements (without I-405 Improvements) is included in this FEIS (see Figure 2-2). In addition to Lake Washington Boulevard channelization, these improvements would include signalization at the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection, I-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street, and I-405 northbound ramp/NE 44th Street intersections. At the I-405 northbound ramp/NE 44th Street intersection, separate northbound/southbound left turn lanes would also be constructed with the signal installation. In 2014, the City of Renton also conducted a review of cumulative transportation impacts along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor, including the Quendall Terminals Project and five other known pipeline projects (City of Renton Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton, October 2014). The review concluded that project-specific mitigation without I-405 improvements for Quendall Terminals would be adequate in the near-term and the relocation of the future signal into the site from Ripley Lane to N 43rd Street should be considered. As a result, mitigation measures for the Quendall Terminals Project have been modified in this FEIS to allow the City, WSDOT, the applicant and other adjacent property owners to further consider this potential relocation in future design of the interchange system (see FEIS Appendix C for details). 2. Traffic forecasts for the I-405 corridor indicate that without any improvements along the corridor, significant congestion would be experienced southbound, and that diversion of project and non-project traffic to parallel corridors (i.e., Lake Washington Boulevard) would occur. The potential impacts of this diversion on the adjacent I-405 interchange system were tested in the DEIS. As noted in the response to Comment 5 in EIS Addendum Letter 11, under future 2015 conditions without I-405 Improvements, mitigation measures would be implemented to address existing deficiencies as well as accommodate project traffic increases between Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street and I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street (see DEIS Appendix H and EIS Addendum E for details). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined that the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified, in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 - Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 3. As noted in the response to Comment 2 in this letter, diversion of both project and non- project traffic is forecast to occur in the network scenario that assumes no future I-405 widening improvements. Under these conditions, diversion of project traffic is expected to occur to other parallel traffic routes east of I-405 as well. 4. A sketch of the I-405/NE 44th Street interchange and Lake Washington Boulevard conceptual improvements (without I-405 Improvements) is included in this FEIS (see Figure 2-2). In addition to Lake Washington Boulevard channelization, project mitigation Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-113 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments under the Preferred Alternative would include signalization at the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard, I-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street, and I-405 northbound ramp/NE 44th Street intersections. The comment regarding channelization proposals in WSDOT Limited Access is noted. 5. Your comments are noted for the record. Ultimately, the City and WSDOT will jointly approve both the design and operational characteristics of the developer-funded mitigation at the interchange or the interchange improvements planned as part of I-405 Improvements. 6. Summary Table 10 was added to the updated transportation analysis in EIS Addendum Appendix E to accompany the detailed LOS summary sheets. Since I-405 is a WSDOT facility designated as a Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS), there are no concurrency/LOS standards that can be applied to this facility by WSDOT or other jurisdictions. As shown in Table 10 in EIS Addendum Appendix E, all study intersections are forecast to operate at LOS F without the project in 2015 and without the I-405 Improvements, but would improve to LOS E or better with the proposed project channelization/traffic control mitigation. Therefore, the identified mitigation would improve the LOS/delay with the project to acceptable levels versus the baseline or non- development scenario. 7. All City Synchro files are on file at the City of Renton, and are available on request. From: Rajendra [mailto:agrawaalr@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 8:44 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Quendall Terminals EIS Development I am in support of the Quendall Terminals as I believe it will have a positive social and financial impact for Renton. However, I am not in support of the proposal as shown and believe a revised development plan will be more attractive on this site. The revisions include: 1.May Creek ‐ Any development in the Quendall area should take into consideration that the natural habitat of the May Creek is protected. 2.Public ally accessible trail‐ The trail should be adequately lighted in the evening and seats to be provided and the lake frontage beautified with landscape. 3.Restaurants ‐ 1. Face West to lake fronts. 2. Restaurants to be mid to high ends. No fast food types. 4.Entertainment facilities ‐ There should be indoor facilities to cater for public functions and to accommodate between 300 to 1000 people. There should be open area facing the lake for public functions such as garden wedding. 5.Barbee Mill ‐ The development must take into consideration the Barbee Mill residential as any unthoughtful development will have detrimental consequences on the values of real estate in the Barbee Mill area. The developers should visit Crillion Point in Kirkland and Restaurants in south Lake Union as development examples. I am pleased to note that the EPA is involved in the development and hope the agency will ensure that this area will be safe for people to live, to work and to use public facilities. Public Comment by Rajendra Agrawaal 1113 N 29th Street, Renton, WA 98056 Sent from my iPad Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-115 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 10 Rajendra Agrawaal 1. Your comments are noted for the record. 2. Analyses of groundwater conditions and critical areas were included in the DEIS and EIS Addendum. DEIS Sections 3.1 and 3.2, and EIS Addendum Sections 3.1 and 4.2 indicated that no groundwater or critical area impacts associated with the May Creek drainage would be anticipated with proposed redevelopment. 3. If authorized by EPA in the Record of Decision (ROD) or any Natural Resource Damages (NRD) settlement, the trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area would be publically accessible and a connection would be provided between the trail and Lake Washington Boulevard. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail would be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road. The trail would connect to the recently constructed May Creek Trail and would link the area to Cougar Mountain in the future. Site amenities would also be provided along the trail, including tables, benches, and interpretive signage (see the Parks and Recreation mitigation measures in FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for details). 4. Your comment is noted for the record 5. Your comment is noted for the record 6. Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, a Preferred Alternative was developed by the applicant and analyzed in the EIS Addendum. The Preferred Alternative includes modifications to the proposal that would reduce the impacts on residential development to the south, including building height modulation, setbacks, and landscaping (see Chapter 2 of the EIS Addendum for details on the Preferred Alternative). 7. While EPA-related cleanup/remediation of the site is part of a separate process, redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals Project is being coordinated with the cleanup/remediation process and would be conducted consistent with the requirements in the final cleanup remedy selected and overseen by EPA, and with any associated institutional controls. From:Maria Antezana [mailto:maria@dynamiclanguage.com] Sent:Monday, January 17, 2011 9:46 PM To:Vanessa Dolbee Cc:Ricardo Antezana Subject:Urgent Letter to the City of Renton Importance:High Dear Sirs, Attached please find our final comments regarding the proposed development of the Quendal Terminal project. After Boeing vacated several buildings in Renton, the downtown area looked abandoned as many businesses and restaurants were forced to close due to reduced business. The construction of the Seahawks facility, Barbee Mill, one of the premier housing developments along Lake Washington, and The Landing, were welcome improvements to the City of Renton - because they gave this area a revitalized look. However, if the Quendal Terminal is allowed to be developed as suggested the impact to the residents along Lake Washington could be catastrophic. We urge you to give careful consideration to this crucial issue; as it could affect the lives and wellbeing of not only the residents of the City of Renton but also the hundreds of thousands of daily commuters who use the 405 Freeway. Respectfully yours, Ricardo & Maria Antezana Barbee Mill Homeowners 1025 N 42nd Pl Renton, Wa 98056 1 2 DEIS Letter 11 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-117 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 11 Ricardo and Maria Antezana (email) 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. Your comment is noted for the record. Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 1 Date: To: City of Renton Planning Department Attn: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7314 vdolbee@rentonwa.gov From: Name: Ricardo & Maria Antezana Address: 1025 N. 42 nd Pl – Renton, Wa 98056 Phone Number: 425-271-1087 Email Address:maria@dynamiclanguage.com Subject:Public Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal Draft EIS (LUA09-151) Following are our comments regarding the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal site as outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). As homeowners, tax payers and citizens of the City of Renton, we believe that the proposed and binding Quendall development proposal has tremendous negative and adverse impacts to the environment, property, the neighborhood and our Barbee Mill community and should NOT be approved. 1) Size & Scale Impact a. Scale—The proposed scale, density and height of the buildings in both alternatives are completely out-of-scale, incompatible and inconsistent with all neighborhoods on the entire shoreline of Lake Washington. The typical height limit for buildings along the Lake is 35 ft. The proposed heights and densities exceed those of Downtown Kirkland, Carillon Point, Bellevue and Seattle’s Lake Washington facing neighborhoods. Furthermore, the proposed scale, density and height of the Quendall proposal are inconsistent and incompatible with adjacent neighborhoods, the East facing shoreline of Mercer Island. It will completely dwarf the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. b. The proposed buildings would be more than 40 ft taller than the height of the Barbee Mill homes. And they would be more than double the height of all nearby residences! The proposed buildings are nearly 90 ft in height although they are marked as 77 ft on the applicants elevation drawings, which is 3/4 the height of the Seahawks/VMAC Facility and the Boeing Airplane Factory. Again this is completely out-of-scale with the Barbee Mill neighborhood AND anything else along the Lake Washington shoreline. (DEIS 3.5-12) i. Figure 3.7-2 in the DEIS is an inaccurate and misleading rendering that attempts to conceal the height and visual impact of both proposal alternatives. c. The proposed architectural design resembles an industrial park and does not have the look or the feel of a residential neighborhood. It is certainly “not consistent with the existing urban character” (as claimed in DEIS 3.5- 12) of any of the immediate and nearby residential neighborhoods, including Barbee Mill. The proposed scale, density and character would 1 2 3 4 5 DEIS Letter 12 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 2 be an eyesore no matter what angle it is viewed from within the adjacent neighborhoods or from lakefront properties along Mercer. d. The proposed design looks more like the Landing, which is sandwiched in between a shopping center and the country’s second largest airplane factory and which is NOT located on the shores of one of the most beautiful lakes in the state and which is NOT located in the middle of an existing residential area. e. The Applicant claims that this area along the Lake Washington shoreline is currently a high-density urban environment. (DEIS 3.5-12) This statement is misleading and couldn’t be farther from the truth as all neighboring areas are completely residential (with the exception of the Seahawks facility.) f. The proposed designs and project scope, scale and density are inappropriate for the shoreline of Lake Washington and do not in any way take advantage of the Lake front location and view. The buildings face each other instead of the Lake. The primary lake view outlook and central lakefront architectural feature is a semi-circular parking lot. i. The Mayor stated in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Renton still has some amazing waterfront property on Lake Washington.”We couldn’t agree more. However, this proposal in no way takes advantage of or capitalizes on this amazing piece of waterfront property. In fact, the proposal looks like the City of Renton has taken a giant step backwards by proposing a self- facing vs. lake facing, residential complex, retail and office park with limited green space and tree canopy. This is not responsible growth. Nor is it responsible stewardship and development of the largest piece of remaining undeveloped land along the shoreline of beautiful Lake Washington. ii. The proposal calls for a straight, walled, 2-story parking garage, approximately 1000 ft in length, to traverse the entire Lake Washington frontage of the Quendall development with absolutely no undulation. There is nothing in the architectural design to break up the negative, visual impact of this two-story wall facing the Lake. This scale of this lake-facing 2-story garage wall is unheard of in residential zoning and lakefront zoning and does not fit the character nor complement the adjacent neighborhoods. g. The proposed development does NOT complement or add value to the existing neighborhoods especially neighboring Barbee Mill. Instead, this development would be tremendously destructive to the property value for the surrounding neighborhoods (including Barbee Mill, Kennydale, Newcastle and the East-facing side of Mercer Island) and detrimental to the quality of life for residents. 2) Density Impact a. This proposal repeatedly and misleadingly (DEIS 3.9-1) describes the Quendall development as “compatible with the existing neighborhoods.” This is preposterous and we strongly disagree. For example, Barbee Mill to the south has a planned density of 5 residential units per acre and contains no commercial (office or retail) space. The Quendall proposal is for 37 residential units per acre plus up to a ¼ million square feet of commercial space that would accommodate up to 2000 daily visitors. This is approximately 7 times the density of the local residential areas 5 cont 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 3 and is in no way “consistent with the existing urban character of the area.” In fact, the existing character of the local area can only accurately be described as residential. Both proposal alternatives, present tremendous compatibility impacts with the surrounding neighborhoods. b. Commercial/residential buildings in Renton and in the greater Eastside area, have tended to have a history of high-turnover, high-vacancy and have not proven to be particularly commercially viable. Our concern is that tenants of apartments and commercial space will have no vested interest in the neighborhood, the community or in the future vision for the city of Renton. And that such a development, could wind up sitting vacant for many years to come. 3) Traffic, Transportation & Parking Impact a. The traffic impact assessment in the DEIS is completely unrealistic. To begin with, the analysis in the DEIS does not take into account the traffic study and analysis for the adjacent Hawk’s Landing (Pan Abode) development, which estimated an additional 1400+ automotive trips a day flowing onto Lake Washington Blvd and adding to traffic congestion on the surrounding streets and I-405 exit 7 on-ramps and off-ramps. i. Before this or any other area development proposal is approved, a new, comprehensive traffic analysis should be done that focuses on the combined traffic impact of: Quendall Terminal property, Hawk’s Landing/Pan Abode property, Seakhawks/VMAC Facility, Ripley Lane neighborhood, Barbee Mill, Kennydale neighborhood, I-405 congestion, commuters trying to bypass 405 congestion on Lake Washington Blvd and the City’s goal of providing direct access to Lake Washington from Park Dr & Sunset Blvd. This comprehensive traffic analysis should reflect all existing, proposed and potential developments and their collective impact on the immediate vicinity and existing neighborhoods. WSDOT analysis, future plans and funding for I-405 must be factored into the traffic analysis and any infrastructure planning. (Reference: Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009) b. The proposal calls for an unacceptable increase in traffic with an estimated 2000 cars a day. Add to that, the estimated 1400 automotive trips a day from the proposed Hawks Landing development. The current infrastructure can in no way support the increases being proposed. There are no proposed plans to improve or widen the immediate roads or build the proper egress and ingress access roads to/from the proposed Quendall development. c. The proposal calls for N 43 rd St to serve as the primary entrance to the Quendall property. This narrow, residential street is already the primary entrance for the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. This un-striped, 2-lane 135-ft long street, which has two stop signs and a railroad crossing, can in no way accommodate the proposed additional 2000 cars per day PLUS the cars of Barbee Mill residents. Furthermore, 43rd has already become plagued by a dangerous trends of drivers making hazardous u-turns and 3-point turns in the intersection of 43 rd and Lake Washington Blvd. Given all this, it is shocking that the DEIS does NOT list NE 43rd St as a roadway condition concern. NE 43rd St is in no way sufficient to serve as the primary entrance for both Quendall and Barbee 12 cont. 13 14 15 16 17 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 4 Mill it cannot safely and effectively accommodate the additional influx of 2000 cars per day. This proposal will result in intolerable traffic congestion, increased risk of accidents, noise pollution and egress problems for Barbee Mill Homeowners. i. 2000 additional cars/day will translate into 700 to 800 ft of traffic jams along Lake Washington Blvd, 43rd and Ripley Lane. The current infrastructure can in no way handle this increased volume. Lake Washington Blvd. is a narrow, 2-lane, scenic, curving, hilly, 25 mph road with bike lanes in both margins and many residential driveways. It is already extremely difficult to navigate Lake Washington Blvd given the present volume of traffic. Furthermore, it is already difficult with the present volume of traffic to enter or exit the Barbee Mill development at 43 rd or 41st during the peak traffic hours and/or on sunny summer days from Lake Washington Blvd. Lake Washington Blvd does not have the capacity to handle the 2000/day proposed additional cars (3400+ if you factor in Hawk’s Landing). And, any serious infrastructure modifications to Lake Washington Blvd would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhoods, the environmentally sensitive May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline. 1. As a demonstration, one need to look no further than the congestion, parking and traffic nightmare that was created on 1/14/11 when hundreds of Seahawk Fans (including children and pets) and their vehicles descended on the intersection of Ripley Lane and Lake Washington Blvd. Cars were parked all over 43rd, 44th, Lake Washington & Ripley Lane. It made it nearly impossible to enter/exit Barbee Mill on 43rd. Fans also jammed the 30th Bridge and surrounding Kennydale neighborhoods, which has been proposed as an alternate travel route for the Quendall Property. 2. As a demonstration, congestion is also extremely heavy when during the Seahawk Training Days in August, despite the fact that the Seahawks arrange for buses and parking in the Landing in their effort to mitigate what would be the adverse impact of an approximate 2000 cars per day from coming into and parking in the neighborhoods adjacent to Ripley Lane including Barbee Mill. 3. We do not understand why the proposal does not bring traffic directly into the center of the Quendall property via a new access road which would need to be built to cross Ripley Lane and that would be more capable of handling that volume of traffic. However, we are not sure that any development plan that calls for 2000 or more additional cars/day on area roads can be adequately addressed through existing, modified or new infrastructure. 4. The details of the traffic analysis for Lake Washington Blvd at 43rd have been left out of (Table 3.9-1) AND there is no mention in the proposal of improving 43rd. ii. We are concerned that frustrated motorists who are eager to avoid the traffic congestion on Lake Washington Blvd will either make 17 cont. 18 19 20 21 22 23 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 5 dangerous u-turns and/or choose to use Barbee Mill as a major arterial north/south bypass route for Lake Washington Blvd. The streets within Barbee Mill can in no way accommodate this increased traffic volume. This bypass traffic would present a tremendous risk and inconvenience for Barbee Mill residents. It would hamper ability to safely enter and exit our own neighborhood and residences. The added traffic on Barbee Mill’s streets would create a public safety risks for residents as well as for area pedestrians, joggers, cyclists, children in strollers and pets that enjoy our streets. We are extremely concerned about the added danger of so many motorists trying to navigate the already hazardous blind curve at 42nd (just shortly after you turn into Barbee Mill from 43rd). The bypass traffic would also generate significant noise pollution. We believe that this proposal and its traffic volume will not only impact Barbee Mill homeowner and community safety but that it will adversely impact and reduce property values and quality of life for Barbee Mill homeowners. d. Traffic on I-405 at 44 th and 30th is already one of the most frequently congested parts of the freeway in both the North and South lanes. Congestion occurs not only at peak traffic hours but throughout the majority of the day. The freeway, just as the neighboring roads, can in no way accommodate an additional influx of 2000 cars per day. Throughout the proposal, the applicant has stated that various traffic impacts could be mitigated through a coordinated effort with WSDOT. However, WSDOT went on record during the DEIS Scoping Summary stating that “the potential I-405/NE 44 St interchange improvements project is not funded, and is not likely to be funded in the foreseeable future; the transportation analysis should not assume that this project is complete or will occur.”(Pg 5-EIS Scoping Summary) We believe that approving a major Quendall development plan without WSDOT commitment, funding, schedule and a plan in place to improve this interchange would have irreversible consequences and would cause a tremendous number of adverse impacts. i. There are scenarios in the proposal that suggest using the I-405 30th street onramp/offramp (exit 6) and then routing cars through the hilly, residential neighborhoods in Kennydale along 30th, 40th, Burnett and Park. This is not a realistic alternative and is equally as dangerous as cars choosing to use Barbee Mill as a shortcut. And it could encourage drivers travelling northbound and southbound on Lake Washington Blvd to take a shortcut through Barbee Mill. e. Transportation—The proposal does not include any plans to develop, improve or encourage public transit in the vicinity. This means that there would be no alternative form of transportation for the estimated 2000+ daily visitors and tenants. It is not an environmentally responsible transportation design solution to place 2000 additional cars onto neighborhood streets and the lakefront in this residential community without providing realistic transportation alternatives. i. In the Mayor’s 2010 State of the City Address, he declared “I believe that it is vital that we have the right infrastructure in place now to serve the needs of our future. We will continue to work with 23 cont. 24 25 26 27 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 6 the state and regional transportation organizations to make critical investments to create an affective transportation system that allows goods and people to move efficiently.”The Quendall proposal does not provide for any investments to create an affective transportation solution in the area NOR does it put the right infrastructure in place to serve the needs of the immediate area and alleviate traffic and noise and air pollution impacts and public safety risks. f. Parking—In the Proposal Alternative 2, there are surface level parking lots for 220 cars up placed right up against the entire north property line for Barbee Mill. This is in no way consistent with land use compatibility in the neighborhood and will adversely impact property values and quality of life. Nor is Proposal Alternative 1, which calls for a 6-story building to be placed right up against the north fence of Barbee Mill. We believe that it is not an acceptable plan to place parking lots, tall buildings and/or delivery entrances right up against the north Barbee Mill fence. i. We are concerned that if fees are charged for parking in the Quendall development, that visitors and tenants will seek out free parking in the adjacent neighborhood streets especially at Barbee Mill—which already suffers from insufficient street parking for residents and guests. 4) Public Safety Impact a. Cyclist Safety/Pedestrian/Runners Safety—Lake Washington Blvd was never meant to be a major thoroughfare. It is a hilly, scenic route through residential neighborhoods. It has no sidewalks and is very poorly lit at night. In fact, it is already quite dangerous on winter nights to turn into the Barbee Mill development at either 43rd or 44th St as there are no streetlights at either intersection. Lake Washington Blvd (in addition to Barbee Mill streets) is currently used not only by vehicles but also by pedestrians walking their pets and children, joggers and bicyclists. Given that there are no sidewalks and poor lighting along the road, such an increase in cars would not only cause traffic gridlock and backups but would also present a tremendous safety hazard to all using the bike lanes and shoulders for purposes other than driving. i. As a demonstration, a Barbee Mill resident counted more than 140 cyclists using Lake Washington Blvd and crossing 43rd St in a 90- minute period on a recent summer Saturday morning. b. We are concerned that the proposed public access trail and above ground parking lots located right against Barbee Mill North fence would invite evening transient traffic and loitering that could lead to crime. This fence backs up against an existing quiet residential neighborhood. This would not only adversely impact quality of life for Barbee Mill residents but also reduce property values. c. We are concerned that the proposed traffic volume and insufficient infrastructure, would affect the ability of emergency vehicles and first responders to quickly access the Barbee Mill community (and Ripley Lane neighborhood) in the event of an emergency. This puts the lives and health of residents at risk. d. We are concerned that a newly accessible open public space, trails, and parking lots may become an attractive target to a criminal element and would bring an increase risk of crime, vandalism, gang activity, graffiti, 27 cont. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 7 noise, and other negative and unwanted activity that would put neighborhood homeowners’ safety and security at risk. 5) Light, Glare & Noise Impact a. We have tremendous concern over the amount of light and glare that would be emitted from the proposed high-density residential buildings (proposed to be as high as 90ft) and the evening and night-time restaurant patrons and shoppers in the retail development. We also are concerned about the noise pollution that would come from delivery trucks, giant HVAC units, 2000+ cars/day and ensuing traffic, residential tenants, office workers, retail shoppers and potential bar/restaurant patrons. The light, glare and noise from the proposed Quendall development would adversely impact quality of life and property values for the residents and homeowners of Barbee Mill. 6) Environmental Impact a. The true baseline character of the Quendall property is unknown until the EPA mandated remedial action is fully specified and completed. We believe that the DEIS proposes prematurely, approval of a BINDING site plan for specifications of square feet of various building types, number of parking spaces, roads, traffic and egress to and from the development. Approving the BINDING plan PRIOR TO completed the mandated remedial clean up of the Superfund sight is not only unwise and imprudent but the long term consequences and negative impacts are just too great. As homeowners, this is not the legacy we want to have to live with nor is what we want for our health, our quality of life and our property values. b. Mayor Law declared in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Clean, healthy air; high quality drinking water; and trails and green open spaces are key to keeping our city a great place to live and work. Expanding our tree canopy, creating a better trail system, and protecting our environment provide many benefits to the city and boosts property values by making neighborhoods greener.”Unfortunately, the current proposal for Quendall runs completely contrary to the Mayor’s pledge. c. Superfund Site Carcinogens & The Impact on The Environment— The EPA has tremendous concerns about the carcinogenic substances on the Quendall site, cleanup and the adverse impact the cleanup would have on the Lake, including fishing and swimming and on several species. We share this concern. (EPA ID# WAD980639215). i. They state: “The primary contaminants of concern are carcinogenic PAHs and benzene. These contaminants are found in the soil and ground water throughout the site. These compounds are found at concentrations well above State cleanup levels for residential and industrial sites. At some locations on the site, creosote product has been found under the surface. In some areas the product is four to six feet thick. Releases of these contaminants to Lake Washington are of particular concern. Lake Washington is used for a variety of recreational purposes including fishing and swimming. The southern end of Lake Washington, including the area where the site is located, is considered prime habitat for rearing of juvenile Chinook, which is a Federal Threatened Species, and other salmon stocks. The Cedar River, which enters Lake Washington approximately two 34 cont. 35 36 37 38 39 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 8 miles from the site, supports the largest sockeye run in the contiguous United States. Lake Washington also supports several sensitive environments including habitat for bull trout and the bald eagle. In addition, there are two swimming beaches located within one half mile of the site.” As homeowners at Barbee Mill, we enjoy having access to the shoreline in our development and do not want to see it adversely impacted by the release of contaminants nor do we want to put the health of our families at risk. d. We understand that the EPA has jurisdiction over the remediation and cleanup of the Superfund Site at Quendall Terminals. We are extremely concerned about what carcinogenic contaminants will be released into the air and water (through either surface or aquifer transfer) and into our neighborhoods and into our shoreline and May Creek as a result of the initial cleanup process. We are also extremely concerned about the adverse impact that the proposed mitigation, land filling, grading, piling driving and other redevelopment activities will have on our neighborhoods and our residents. Furthermore, the DEIS proposes no dust control measures during the construction process to minimize contaminant transportation to Barbee Mill Homes. We believe strongly that it is NOT PRUDENT OR RESPONSIBLE to approve any BINDING redevelopment proposal for this site until the remediation and cleanup of this critical Superfund site has been thoroughly planned and safely planned, executed and effectively completed by the EPA. To expedite the redevelopment process in order to pursue redevelopment income, puts at risk and adversely affects the health and lives of the immediate neighborhood residents, users of Lake Washington and the existing wildlife. Pursuing binding development agreements BEFORE Superfund cleanup would be an extremely poor decision with a tremendously risky outcome. e. Wetlands— The overall wetlands in the Quendall property are at least twice the size they are portrayed as in the EIS. In particular in the Southwest corner (a small blue dot labeled “H”) is nearly an acre in total size, which is 50-times the size of what is portrayed in the DEIS. i. The Wetland buffer area for shoreline wetlands should remain at a minimum of 50 ft and should not be reduced for shoreline trails or buildings as currently proposed and shown on figure 2-7. ii. Substituting Wetland “I” or “J”, which is nothing more than a drainage ditch, (per figure 2.6, 2.7 and 2.11) which are separated by Ripley Lane & the railroad tracks and have absolutely no continuity with the Quendall site are not adequate or appropriate solutions for mitigating onsite wetlands throughout the Quendall site including adjacent to Barbee Mill. f. Wildlife—The EIS makes no mention of existing wildlife or mitigation for their loss of habitat from the proposed construction. There are ospreys, eagles, herons, deer, hummingbirds, and other species living in the wetlands and natural habitat of the Quendall property. CONCLUSIONS 1) We recommend that the City does NOT PROCEED with the current BINDING proposal as outlined in the Draft EIS. Of the three alternatives proposed, we believe that the ONLY viable alternative is that of “NO ACTION.” 39 cont. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 9 2) We certainly hope that Mayor Law meant what he pledged in his 2010 State of The City address when he stated: “By engaging citizens to participate in the process we are starting to create a picture of a city that is a leader in growth management.” a. Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, City Planners and Hearing Examiner, as citizens of Renton we are participating in the DEIS public hearing process and we are loudly saying that the proposals outlined in the DEIS for the Quendall Terminal Redevelopment are in no way in alignment with that goal of responsible growth management and would have tremendous adverse impacts on the surrounding community. 3) Mayor Law also concluded his 2010 State of the City address with these words: “I am optimistic about the future. I am optimistic because people in our community are willing to step up and do what is necessary; because it is through partnerships that we tackle tough issues; and because we never quit planning for the future of this great community.” a. So here we are, the people of Renton, stepping up and tackling the tough issues of a poorly thought out, extremely inappropriate and binding DEIS proposal that is completely out of character with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. IF approved and developed, the proposed Quendall development would be a devastating destruction to the shoreline of Lake Washington and to the surrounding community. This proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Property is definitely NOT what we want to see in the future of our great community. 4) We believe that this proposal would have a tremendously adverse impact on the existing adjacent neighborhoods especially our Barbee Mill community. The proposed Quendall development would negatively impact and affect traffic, public safety, quality of life and property values in Barbee Mill and surrounding neighborhoods. 5) As homeowners, taxpayers and citizens of the City of Renton, we urge the City of Renton to NOT approve this binding proposal for the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Proposal. The only one of its alternatives that is viable is that of “NO ACTION!” 47 48 49 50 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-127 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 12 Ricardo and Maria Antezana (letter) 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. It is acknowledged that overall development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, individual buildings in the proposed development would be similar in height and bulk to existing and proposed commercial and multifamily residential uses in the site area; but greater in height and bulk than surrounding single family residential uses. The DEIS and EIS Addendum indicated that the proposed individual buildings on the Quendall Terminals site would be greater in height and bulk than adjacent single-family residential buildings to the south (i.e., in the Barbee Mill residential development). As a result, project mitigation measures have been identified for the Preferred Alternative to enhance the compatibility of the proposed development with the surrounding residential development (i.e., reduction of the overall development level, modulation of building heights across the site, provision for building setbacks, modifications in building materials, and addition of landscaping). See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details regarding the proposed height, bulk, and scale of the project, and FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. There is no typical height limit for development along Lake Washington in the City of Renton. The height limit in the COR zone in which the Quendall Terminals site is located is 125 feet. The proposed maximum building height of 64 feet under the Preferred Alternative would be well within the COR height limit. 3. As noted in the response to Comment 2 in this letter, the DEIS and EIS Addendum acknowledged that proposed individual buildings on the Quendall Terminals site would be greater in height than adjacent single-family residential buildings to the south (i.e., in the Barbee Mill residential development). As a result, project mitigation measures have been identified for the Preferred Alternative to enhance the compatibility of the proposed buildings with the surrounding residential development. Proposed Building SW4 in the southwestern portion of the site would be four stories high adjacent to the Barbee Mill development. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-23) for details on the proposed height, bulk, and scale of the project. 4. The methods used for the DEIS visual simulations were confirmed in the EIS Addendum, including confirming the accuracy of the 3D model and the camera’s alignment and location. A perspective illustration was also created to demonstrate that the visual simulations accurately depicted the views from the selected viewpoints (see EIS Addendum Figure 3.2-2). This illustration shows the view of the proposed development from Mercer Island (Viewpoint 1) and incorporates a 125-foot high scale, broken into 10- foot increments, that extends along the shoreline, through the center of the site, and along the site’s rear property line. As shown in the illustration, the massing of the buildings in the Barbee Mill development (approximately 36 feet high) coincide with floor three and four of the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, the proposed buildings depicted in the visual simulations for DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 and the Preferred Alternative are Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-128 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments accurate. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Aesthetics/Views Response 2 – page 2-29) for details on the methods used for the visual simulations included in the DEIS and EIS Addendum. 5. Your comment is noted for the record. Architectural features (i.e., roof slope, façade modulation, building materials, etc.) shall be incorporated into the design of each building and are intended to enhance the compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding uses (see EIS Addendum Figures 2-5 through 2-9 for representative building elevations and sketches). See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Aesthetics/Views Response 3 – page 2-30) for details on the proposed building design under the Preferred Alternative. 6. As noted in the response to Comment 2 in this letter, proposed overall development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. Proposed individual buildings would be greater in height than adjacent single-family residential buildings to the south (i.e., in the Barbee Mill residential development). As a result, mitigation measures have been identified for the Preferred Alternative to enhance the compatibility of the proposed buildings with the surrounding residential uses. The Preferred Alternative would feature exterior materials in keeping with surrounding uses. See FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24 and Aesthetics/Views Response 3 – page 2-30) for details on the proposed height, bulk, and scale, and proposed building materials of the project. 7. As noted in the Response to Comment 2 in this letter, proposed individual buildings on the Quendall Terminals site would be similar in height and bulk to existing and proposed commercial and multifamily residential buildings to the north and east (i.e., in the Seahawks Training Facility, Hawk’s Landing, and commercial and multifamily residential areas to the east), but greater in height and bulk than adjacent single-family residential buildings to the south (i.e., in the Barbee Mill residential development). See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details on the proposed height, bulk, and scale of the project. 8. The proposed design of the Preferred Alternative includes buildings that would face the western edge of the site, towards Lake Washington. See EIS Addendum Figures 2-8 and 2-9 for conceptual views of proposed development under the Preferred Alternative. Parking has been eliminated from the westernmost roundabout onsite under this alternative (see EIS Addendum Figure 2-3 and Aesthetics/Views mitigation measure F10 in FEIS Chapter 1). The building orientation is designed to maximize on-site view corridors and allow for a portion of the off-site views to be maintained. Mitigation measures have also been included to modulate the proposed buildings near the shoreline area (see Land and Shoreline Use and Aesthetics/Views mitigation measures E4 and F9 in FEIS Chapter 1). 9. Your comment is noted for the record. Approximately 10.6 acres of the site (approximately 49 percent of the site area) would be provided in “Natural Open Space Areas” and “Other Related Areas” under the Preferred Alternative, including the public trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area (if authorized by EPA’s Record of Decision [ROD] or any Natural Resource Damages [NRD] settlement) (see EIS Addendum Section 4.7, Parks and Recreation, for details). Of this total area, approximately 3.7 acres would be “Natural Public Open Space Areas” including the trail Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-129 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area and natural areas. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail would be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road. Approximately 6.9 acres of “Other Related Areas” would be provided including landscaping and sidewalks located throughout the site that would provide a connection between the trail and Lake Washington Boulevard and other areas beyond the site (including the May Creek Parkway and a future connection to Cougar Mountain). The “Other Related Areas” may or may not meet the City’s standards, regulations, and procedures for open space. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement result in alterations to the plans for the Preferred Alternative, including the “Natural Public Open Space Areas” or “Other Related Areas”, the City could re-evaluate the plans Under the Preferred Alternative, approximately 1.8 acres of indoor and/or outdoor area would be provided onsite for active recreation (i.e., Frisbee, swimming pools, tot lots, bocce ball courts, exercise rooms, active recreation in courtyards, etc.), as approved by the City’s responsible public official (see Parks and Recreation mitigation measures G8 in FEIS Chapter 1) 10. As illustrated in EIS Addendum Figures 2-5 through 2-10, the parking garages under the Preferred Alternative would include only one-story of parking and would contain architectural elements to enhance the aesthetic appeal of these structures. Street-level, under-building parking areas would be concealed from sidewalks and streets by retail uses along certain facades. Where this parking would extend to the exterior of the building, elements such as architectural façade components, trellises, berms, and landscaping would be used for screening (see Aesthetics/Views mitigation measure F2 in FEIS Chapter 1). Mitigation measures identified for the Preferred Alternative that could further enhance the aesthetic character of the ground level of the proposed buildings, include: 1) reducing the amount of required parking so that parking could be set back from the exterior of the buildings, allowing other uses to occupy these areas, and 2) providing vertical and/or horizontal modulation along the lake side of the structures to break up the larger structures (see Aesthetics/Views mitigation measure F9, F11, and F12 in FEIS Chapter 1). 11. Your comment is noted for the record. 12. As noted in the Response to Comment 2 in this letter, it is acknowledged that proposed individual buildings on the Quendall Terminals site would be greater in height and bulk than adjacent single-family residential buildings to the south (i.e., in the Barbee Mill residential development). As a result, mitigation measures have been identified for the Preferred Alternative to enhance the compatibility of the proposed buildings with the surrounding residential uses. No office uses would be included in the Preferred Alternative. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details on the proposed height, bulk, and scale of the project. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-130 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 13. Your comment is noted for the record. Market analyses prepared for the project by the applicant concluded that the proposed mixed-use development would be financially viable, and long-term vacancies would not be anticipated. 14. Two separate factors were considered to project future traffic volumes within the Quendall Terminals Project study area: 1) general growth within the Renton area and larger Puget Sound region (representing a general background growth rate of between 2 and 3 percent), and 2) specific pipeline development in the immediate vicinity, including the Hawk’s Landing development, as well as other future planned development (Barbee Mill, Kennydale Apartments, etc.). See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Transportation Response 1 – page 2-17) for details on the methods used for the transportation analysis. 15. The DEIS transportation analysis was updated in the EIS Addendum (see EIS Addendum Appendix E); additional transportation analysis is also included in this FEIS (see FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page 2-10) and Appendix B). These analyses represent a comprehensive review of the potential transportation impacts of the Quendall Terminals Project. They specifically account for general traffic growth and traffic from pipeline development (including Hawk’s Landing, Barbee Mill, the Kennydale Apartments, etc.), reflect the latest available regional forecasts of population and employment levels throughout the Puget Sound, and account for peak use of the existing Seahawks Training Facility. The studies consider regional growth and traffic demand in the site vicinity with and without future planned widening of I-405 (including congestion and diversion to parallel corridors). In addition, in 2014 the City of Renton conducted a review of cumulative transportation impacts along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor, including the Quendall Terminals Project and five other known pipeline projects (City of Renton Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton, October 2014). The review concluded that project- specific mitigation without I-405 improvements for Quendall Terminals would be adequate in the near-term and the relocation of the future signalized access into the site from Ripley Lane to N 43rd Street should be considered. As a result, mitigation measures for the Quendall Terminals Project have been modified in this FEIS to allow the City, WSDOT, the applicant and other adjacent properties to further consider this potential relocation in future design of the interchange system (see FEIS Appendix C for details). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 16. Mitigation measures have been identified to minimize potential transportation impacts that could result with redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative. With implementation of these measures, traffic facilities within the area would operate within accepted standards, with or without future I-405 Improvements. The mitigation measures include: roadway widening, intersection channelization, traffic control treatments, non-motorized improvements, traffic management measures, public transportation opportunities, traffic impact fee requirements, and on-site parking management techniques. See FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. As indicated in the EIS Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-131 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments Addendum, there are no significant transportation-related impacts that cannot be mitigated. 17. The primary access to the Quendall Terminals Project would be via the Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street intersection. As indicated in EIS Addendum Section 4.8, Transportation, and Appendix E, site access via the existing N 43rd Street onto Lake Washington Boulevard would also be provided with an estimated 25 percent of all project traffic utilizing this access. With this estimated distribution of traffic, no significant traffic operational impacts are forecast to occur at the secondary access point via Barbee Mill onto Lake Washington Boulevard (N 43rd Street) with the proposed project. Subsequent to the issuance of the EIS Addendum, the City of Renton completed the 2014 Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton and determined that the Quendall Terminals Project should install a traffic signal at the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection as opposed to the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. However, if the traffic signal and configuration of N 43rd Street have not been constructed prior to WSDOT improvements at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, the City will consider changing the location of this signal to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard. An engineering study will be completed at that time to support the determination of the location for the installation of the traffic signal at either the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection or the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection (see FEIS Appendix C for details). 18. As noted in Table 7 in EIS Addendum Appendix E, significant vehicle queuing of 800 feet or more is estimated to occur on Ripley Lane as a result of the additional project traffic without any project mitigation. With the identified traffic mitigation under the Preferred Alternative, vehicle queuing would be reduced substantially and general traffic operations and queuing would fall within acceptable traffic operational conditions (i.e., southbound queues for left turns on Ripley Lane would be reduced to approximately 200 feet, eastbound queues along Lake Washington Boulevard would be reduced to approximately 250 feet or less, and no adjacent intersections would be blocked; see FEIS Figure 2-1 for a depiction of the traffic movements at this intersection). 19. Your comment is noted for the record. Existing traffic counts were conducted at all of the study intersections in 2009 and 2010 for the DEIS. To supplement these counts and address public concerns, additional traffic counts were collected in August of 2012 while Seahawks Training Camp was in session. Traffic operational analysis and forecasts in the EIS Addendum and this FEIS were adjusted to reflect this worst-case condition that occurs only during limited periods during August (see EIS Addendum Appendix E and FEIS Appendix B for details). In addition, Appendix C of this FEIS compares traffic counts that were completed as part of the City of Renton’s 2014 Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton with the 2009 PM peak hour traffic counts that were used as the basis for the Quendall Terminals EIS. The 2009 traffic counts were higher than the 2014 traffic counts (total entering volumes of 7,337 vehicles per hour versus 7,258 vehicles per hour). As a result, it was determined that the growth factors used in the Quendall Terminals EIS were consistent with the 2014 Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton, and the Quendall Terminals EIS transportation analysis were valid (see FEIS Appendix C for details). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-132 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 20. Your comment is noted for the record. As noted in the response to Comment 19 in this letter, to supplement the existing traffic counts from the DEIS and address public concerns, additional traffic counts were collected in August of 2012 while Seahawks Training Camp was in session. Traffic operational analysis and forecasts in the EIS Addendum and this FEIS were adjusted to reflect this worst-case condition that occurs only during limited periods in August (see EIS Addendum Appendix E and FEIS Appendix B for details). 21. Your comment is noted for the record. The primary access to the Quendall Terminals Project would be via the Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street intersection. As indicated in EIS Addendum Section 4.8, Transportation, and Appendix E, site access via existing N 43rd Street onto Lake Washington Boulevard would also be provided with an estimated 25 percent of all project traffic assumed to use this access. 22. The Lake Washington Boulevard/N 43rd Street (Barbee Mill Access) intersection was included in the transportation analyses as Intersection #4. Mitigation measures for Lake Washington Boulevard between N 43rd Street and Ripley Lane and I-405 southbound ramps have been identified as project mitigation (see FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of the mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). 23. Accessing the Quendall Terminals site through the Barbee Mill neighborhood, as an alternative to travelling along Lake Washington Boulevard, represents approximately 800 lineal feet between NE 41st Street and N 43rd Street. It is not expected that using a circuitous route through the Barbee Mill neighborhood would be a better choice for such a short distance. The traffic operational analysis conducted for the DEIS and EIS Addendum (see Appendices H and E to those documents, respectively) concluded that with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures and/or I-405 Improvements, forecasted LOS at nearby intersections and arterials would not result in any significant adverse traffic impacts along Lake Washington Boulevard (see FEIS Table 2-1). 24. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum assumed two transportation scenarios: 1) future development of the Quendall Terminals site with the WSDOT NE 44th Street/I-405 Improvements, and 2) future development without the NE 44th Street/I- 405 Improvements. Mitigation measures were identified for both scenarios. See FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for a final list of the mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 25. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum do not recommend routing any project traffic to the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange system. The analyses do indicate that without any I-405 Improvements by WSDOT or intersection improvements at the ramp junctions at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, project-generated traffic to/from the south of the project site is forecast to shift to access the freeway at the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange, as well as other parallel routes east and west of I-405 during peak commute periods. This potential diversion of traffic was determined to have no significant adverse traffic impacts on the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor or key intersections that would serve these diverted trips via Burnett Avenue N and N 30th Street (see DEIS Appendix H and EIS Addendum Appendix E for details). Also see the FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation page 2-8) for additional analysis of the Park Avenue N corridor and the N 30th Street/I-405 ramps. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-133 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 26. Local and regional transit agencies have no plans (within the DEIS and EIS Addendum transportation study horizon year of 2015, and within the FEIS horizon year of 2017) to provide transit service along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor in the site vicinity. As noted in DEIS Section 3.9, and Appendix H, future public transportation in the vicinity could include Bus Rapid Transit on I-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT with a flyer stop at the I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange. There are many neighborhoods and developments within Renton and throughout the Puget Sound region that are not directly served by transit. As a conservative approach, the City of Renton requested that trip rates generated by residential uses in the proposed Quendall Terminals Project be increased by 10 percent to account for no existing public transit services or commercial businesses in the immediate site vicinity in the EIS transportation analysis. This 10 percent increase has been included in the analysis in both the DEIS and the EIS Addendum to account for the lack of public transit options in the site area. As a project mitigation measure, the redevelopment on the site would include amenities (i.e., planting strips, street lighting, etc.) and access to future transit zones on Lake Washington Boulevard and at the I-405/NE 44th Street interchange to encourage and accommodate public transportation access in the future (see Transportation mitigation measure H9 in FEIS Chapter 1). 27. Under the Preferred Alternative, project mitigation measures would include the provision of frontage improvements along the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane in front of the project site to current City standards. Additional sidewalk improvements, pedestrian crossing accommodations, as well as illumination upgrades would occur along widened sections of Lake Washington Boulevard and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramp intersections as part of signal installation and channelization improvements. These improvements would help address potential public safety issues. The potential implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures would also reduce vehicle trips which could alleviate traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts (see FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). 28. The Preferred Alternative incorporates features to enhance compatibility with the adjacent residential uses to the south, including building height modulation, setbacks and landscaping. Proposed building heights on the site would be modulated to reduce the potential height, bulk, and scale impacts of development on the perimeter of the site. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2- 24) for a discussion of the proposed project’s height, bulk, and scale and its compatibility with surrounding development. 29. As noted in the EIS Addendum, Section 4.8 Transportation, and Appendix E, proposed parking supply under the Preferred Alternative would meet minimum off-street requirements per City code, as well as under the parking demand analysis using standard transportation engineering methods. Shared parking agreements between on- site uses and implementation of TDM measures (for proposed commercial and residential uses) could reduce parking demand during peak periods, thereby reducing the necessary parking supply and demand. There are no plans by the applicant to charge for parking and the analysis contained within the DEIS reflects this assumption. 30. Project mitigation measures include providing frontage improvements along the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N in front of the project site to current City standards. Additional sidewalk improvements, pedestrian crossing Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-134 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments accommodations, as well as illumination upgrades would be provided along widened sections of Lake Washington Boulevard and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramp intersections as part of signal installation and channelization improvements. To mitigate traffic impacts to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor south of the development, traffic calming treatments would be installed on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 41st Street to encourage primary trips generated by the project to use I-405. Final design of traffic calming elements shall be approved by the City. Under State law, this project cannot be required to address any existing deficiencies in off-site non-motorized facilities. See FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of the mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 31. Your comment is noted for the record. 32. Your comment is noted for the record. The Barbee Mill development would be separated from the proposed public access trail and parking areas by a landscape screen (see EIS Addendum Figure 2-3). Landscaping along the south property line would be designed to provide a partial visual screen between the proposed development and adjacent development. Under the Preferred Alternative, the primary access for the proposed trail would be from the main east/west street (Street “B”). 33. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the Preferred Alternative, emergency access to the Barbee Mill development should not be impacted. See FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of the mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 34. Your comment is noted for the record. 35. An analysis of potential light and glare impacts was included as part of the DEIS (Section 3.7) and EIS Addendum (Section 4.6), and mitigation measures have been identified to minimize potential impacts to surrounding uses and the Lake Washington shoreline, including directing light downward and away from adjacent properties and the lake. Under the Preferred Alternative, proposed Building SW4 in the southwestern portion of the site would be a maximum of four stories in height. Noise was not included as an element for analysis in the EIS, because construction and operation of the proposed redevelopment is not anticipated to result in significant noise impacts (i.e., on surrounding uses) with adherence to the City’s noise regulations. A discussion of Construction Impacts is contained in FEIS Chapter 2 – page 2-34. New mitigation measures have been added to the project to address potential construction impacts, including noise (see FEIS Chapter 1 - pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). 36. Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, further environmental review of the project was placed on hold by the City subject to feedback from EPA on the environmental baseline (post-remediation conditions) included in that document. In March 2012, EPA issued a letter indicating that the environmental baseline assumptions represented in the DEIS are reasonable given the expected general outcome of the Record of Decision (ROD), if an increased 100-foot shoreline setback is assumed (see DEIS Letter 4). The Preferred Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-135 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes the shoreline setback recommended by EPA. EPA is planning to consider potential land uses such as those under the Preferred Alternative during consideration of the selected remediation alternative. EPA will select the most appropriate remedy to address contamination in the lake sediments and upland area considering the nature and extent of contamination, site specific conditions, and comparative analysis of remedial technologies and alternatives. A new mitigation measure was added in this FEIS indicating that in the event that the issued EPA ROD is different than what is assumed for this EIS, the City reviewing official shall determine whether the applicant shall be required to prepare additional SEPA review for the project (see Environmental Health mitigation measure C10 in FEIS Chapter 1). 37. Your comment is noted for the record. Proposed development under the Preferred Alternative would include approximately 10.6 acres of “Natural Public Open Space Areas” and “Other Related Areas”, including the development of a publically accessible trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area, if authorized by EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail would be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings onsite, and could be combined with the fire access road. The trail would connect with the recently constructed May Creek Trail and in the future would link the area to Cougar Mountain. Proposed landscaping would also be provided along the perimeter of the site and adjacent to proposed buildings. Landscaping would include native and ornamental plantings, and along the north and south property lines would be designed to provide a partial visual screen between proposed development and adjacent development. 38. EPA will ensure that contaminants that are present in site soils and groundwater from past industrial operations will not be released into the air and water during or following site cleanup/remediation. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Environmental Health – page 2-19) for details on the relationship between the site cleanup/remediation and proposed redevelopment. 39. As described in DEIS Section 3.2, Critical Areas, and EIS Addendum Sections 3.1 and 4.2, Critical Areas, the proposed stormwater management system would be designed in accordance with applicable stormwater regulations. This system would include water quality treatment facilities to collect and treat stormwater runoff from pollution-generating surfaces (i.e., roadways and surface parking areas) prior to discharge to Lake Washington. It is acknowledged that pollution in stormwater runoff can adversely affect salmon and potentially result in mortality. However, as described above, stormwater runoff would be treated in accordance with rigorous, state of the art measures to help maintain and protect water quality and limit impacts to salmonid fish habitat. Moreover, it should be noted that under current conditions, prior to site cleanup/remediation, the shoreline habitat is likely impaired by the presence of toxic chemicals from past uses of the site. Remediation efforts to be performed per the Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-136 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments requirements of the EPA ROD or any NRD settlement are likely to improve habitat substantially for salmonid fish and other species in the lake over current conditions. 40. Your comment is noted for the record. Cleanup and remediation of the site is being conducted through a separate process under the oversight of EPA. 41. Redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site is being coordinated with the ongoing cleanup/remediation process for the site, and would be conducted consistent with the requirements stipulated in the final cleanup/remediation plans selected and overseen by EPA or in any NRD settlement, and any institutional controls. An Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) would be developed that would present a process for obtaining EPA approval if site disturbances are necessary after implementation of the final remedial action. The OMMP would ensure that site development activities would not adversely affect the final cleanup remedy for the site. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Environmental Health – page 2-19). Air quality and noise were not included as elements for analysis in the EIS, because construction and operation of the proposed redevelopment is not anticipated to result in significant air quality and noise impacts (i.e., on surrounding uses) with adherence to the City’s, County’s, and other regulating authorities’ air quality and noise regulations. A discussion of the potential construction impacts of the project is contained in FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Construction Impacts page 2-34). New mitigation measures have been added to the project to address potential construction impacts, including on air quality and noise (see FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). 42. The wetland delineation that was included in the DEIS was conducted according to the methods defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Corps 2008), and DOE’s Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (DOE 1997). The method for delineating wetlands is based on the presence of three parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Hydrophytic vegetation is “the macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present.” Hydric soils are “formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.” Wetland hydrology “encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface for a sufficient duration during the growing season” (DOE 1997). 43. The Preferred Alternative includes a minimum building setback of 100 feet along the Lake Washington shoreline (as compared to 50 feet under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2). The minimum setback under the Preferred Alternative is consistent with EPA’s recommendations and the current City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (2011). Final, detailed plans for the retention/re-establishment of wetlands and their buffers onsite will be developed in accordance with EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement as part of the remediation process, prior to redevelopment. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-137 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 44. The retention/re-establishment of wetland area adjacent to Wetland J on the east side of Seahawks Way or Ripley Lane is intended to replace current wetland areas with a wider range of wetland function and value. New wetland areas adjacent to Wetland J would provide an improvement to habitat quality and overall function from that provided by existing wetlands, which are currently compromised by the presence of soil and water contamination. Habitat function at the expanded Wetland J would also benefit from improved structure and diversity, including emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested habitats. While some stormwater runoff serves as a source of hydrology to the stream, Wetland J is a depressional wetland with emergent and scrub-shrub habitat. The expansion of Wetland J is intended to compensate for impacts to on-site wetlands not associated with Lake Washington (Wetlands B, C, E, and G) and is expected to replace functions lost as part of remediation activities (prior to any redevelopment). The expansion of Wetland J will diversify and improve wetland habitat on this part of the site over the current mix of invasive species in the wetland buffer, primarily Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass. EPA will be responsible for review and approval of the proposed wetland replacement plan for the site through a separate process associated with site cleanup and remediation. 45. As discussed in DEIS Section 3.2, Critical Areas, and Appendix E, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2009; also 2012) Priority Habitats and Species database shows no documented occurrences of priority species or habitats on the site or in the immediate vicinity, other than the presence of wetlands onsite along the lakeshore and listed fish species offsite within Lake Washington to the west and May Creek to the south. Bald eagles (a state sensitive species) may occasionally perch on the site, but the nearest known breeding site occurs on Mercer Island approximately one mile to the west, across Lake Washington. Although indicated as potentially occurring within King County by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012), the gray wolf has not been consistently or reliably documented within King County, particularly within the urbanized Puget Sound lowlands. Known or suspected occurrences of these wolves in Washington center on more remote, forested habitats in the north Cascades, and none have been recorded anywhere near the project site. Ospreys are known to occur in the area, and may use nest platforms constructed along the south end of the Seahawks Training Facility to the north and near the mouth of May Creek on the old Barbee Mill property to the south. DEIS Section 3.2, Critical Areas, and Appendix E evaluated the impacts of the proposed project on wildlife habitat. As described in that document, all of the existing vegetation communities would be removed as part of the remediation plan, prior to site development. Based on the cleanup/remediation process to date, this could include capping of the site area west of Lake Washington Boulevard, and re- establishment/expansion of wetland and upland habitat along the shoreline of the lake. Thus, the presumed existing/baseline condition for impact analysis in the EIS is post- remediation, and the majority of the site is expected to consist of bare soil, except along the Lake Washington shore, where a shoreline restoration plan will be implemented. The upland portion of the Main Property could be temporarily re-vegetated via seeding of herbaceous species following remediation to prevent erosion and sedimentation, depending on the anticipated timing of redevelopment. EPA will evaluate the impacts of vegetation removal and associated wildlife/habitat impacts due cleanup/remediation activities, as well as the re-establishment of shoreline habitat, through a separate review process. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-138 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 46. Your comment is noted for the record. 47. Your comment is noted for the record. 48. Your comment is noted for the record. 49. Your comment is noted for the record. See Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative to address the potential impacts to the environment with construction and operation of the project. 50. Your comment is noted for the record. From: linda baker [mailto:lindabak@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 10:34 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Comments Against Quendall Terminals Draft EIS (LUA09-151) vdolbee@rentonwa.gov February 09, 2011 Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Economic & Community Development, Planning Division Subject: Comments Against Quendall Terminals Draft EIS (LUA09‐151) I live Kennydale, on N 35th St just south of the proposed Quendall Terminal site. The DEIS describes a project that claims its height and bulk are compatible with the surrounding area. The statement is absurd. "Consistent with the existing urban character of the area"? That is just flat out wrong. The only big bulky thing in the whole area is the Seahawk's practice facility and it stands out like a sore thumb because it is way bigger and bulkier than anything else. Other than it the area has nothing even close in height and bulk. And that is even setback from the shoreline. Neither of the development plans are appropriate for the neighborhood. The visual impact and the impact on the local infrastructure are all much more than the neighborhood should have to absorb. They claim they are similar to the Seahawks facility and The Landing. Well, the Seahawks should stand as an exception, and a cautionary one, and The Landing is not nearby and is not situated in the middle of a neighborhood. Even in the new Barbee Mill site the houses are just two to three stories high, not 6 and 7 stories and the density is far, far less. Another very big issue for me would be the added traffic. The traffic coming on and off of 405 (exit 7, 44th street) is already heavy. I sometimes walk from my house across the overpass to the businesses on the east side of the freeway and I have nearly been hit by cars. The whole area around the interchange is not at all conducive to pedestrians. Now add 800 housing units, 245,000 square feet of office space, restaurants and retail space and where and how is the resulting traffic going to be accommodated? I've read that the state has no plans, and no money, to make any changes to the interchange. In the draft statement the applicants seem to assume the state will make such changes anyway! They also suggest they could run traffic up through Kennydale to the 30th street interchange. This is a treet that is a neighborhood street, not an arterial. It is used by school kids on their way to Kennydale Elementary. That is a ridiculous idea. It shows me that they have no sense of the neighborhood. I also ride my bike along the boulevard bike lanes and down Ripley Lane to connect to the bike path that parallels 405. This is a well used route and is part of what makes Renton a livable city for families. The Seahawks Way section already does not have designated bike lanes in both directions and adding a whole lot more vehicle traffic to that street would make it even more hazardous. In addition to the traffic, I am concerned about huge load that would put on the local power, water and sewer infrastructure. All and all I believe the current proposal should be totally rejected. It doesn't seriously consider the problems it raises for the neighborhood and seems to me to be a flagrant attempt to simply build what they want to build without any real concern for the area. Even their slightly scaled down plan is a no go from my point of view. I feel total rejection of the proposal is the appropriate action. Development of the area must accommodate the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration of my opinions. Linda Baker 1202 N 35ht St Renton, WA 98056 425‐271‐1251 lindabak@hotmail.com Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-141 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 13 Linda Baker 1. As discussed in FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24), it is acknowledged that in general, the proposed development would be greater in scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. Proposed individual buildings on the Quendall Terminals site would be greater in height and bulk than adjacent single-family residential buildings (i.e., the Barbee Mill residential development to the south). However, the proposed buildings would generally be similar in height and bulk to the existing Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility building to the north, proposed Hawk’s Landing buildings to the east, and commercial and multifamily residential buildings further to the east, beyond I-405. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes modifications to enhance the compatibility of proposed redevelopment with surrounding single-family residential development (i.e., reduction of overall development level, modulation of building heights across the site, modifications in building materials, and addition of landscaping). See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 2. Your comment is noted for the record. 3. Please see the response to Comment 1 in this letter. The Preferred Alternative includes four-story Building SW4 in the southwestern portion of the site, adjacent to the Barbee Mill development. 4. Identified mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative include providing pedestrian facilities on and in the vicinity of the site. Frontage improvements would be made along the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N in front of the project site and would be to current City standards. Additional sidewalk improvements, pedestrian crossing accommodations, as well as illumination upgrades would be provided along widened sections of Lake Washington Boulevard and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramp intersections as part of signal installation and channelization improvements with the project. See FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 5. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum assumed two transportation scenarios: 1) future development of the Quendall Terminals site with the WSDOT NE 44th Street/I-405 Improvements, and 2) future development without the NE 44th Street/I- 405 Improvements. Mitigation measures were identified for both scenarios. See FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of the mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures. 6. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum do not recommend routing any project traffic to the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange system. The analyses indicate that without any I-405 Improvements by WSDOT or intersection improvements at the ramp junctions at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, project-generated traffic to/from the south of the project site is forecast to shift to access the freeway at the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange as well as other parallel routes east and west of I-405 during peak commute periods. This potential diversion of traffic was found to have no Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-142 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments significant adverse traffic impacts on the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor or key intersections that would serve these diverted trips via Burnett Avenue N and N 30th Street (see DEIS Appendix H and EIS Addendum Appendix E for details). Also see the FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation page 2-8) for additional analysis of the Park Avenue N corridor and the N 30th Street/I-405 ramps. 7. Identified mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative to minimize the potential transportation impacts of the project, include a bicycle lane along the east and west sides of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard from the end of the current bike trail along Ripley Lane to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard or a multi-use path on one side or separated from Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard to mitigate potential conflicts between bicycles and the Quendall Terminals site access point on Ripley Lane (see mitigation measure H10 in FEIS Chapter 1). 8. Your comment is noted for the record. From: Tom Baker [mailto:tommbaker@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 10:23 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Comments Against Quendall Terminals Draft EIS (LUA09-151) February 09, 2011 Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Economic & Community Development, Planning Division Subject: Comments Against Quendall Terminals Draft EIS (LUA09‐151) I live Kennydale, on N 35th St just south of the proposed Quendall Terminal site. The DEIS describes a project that claims its height and bulk are compatible with the surrounding area. The statement is absurd. "Consistent with the existing urban character of the area"? That is just flat out wrong. The only big bulky thing in the whole area is the Seahawk's practice facility and it stands out like a sore thumb because it is way bigger and bulkier than anything else. Other than it the area has nothing even close in height and bulk. And that is even setback from the shoreline. Neither of the development plans are appropriate for the neighborhood. The visual impact and the impact on the local infrastructure are all much more than the neighborhood should have to absorb. They claim they are similar to the Seahawks facility and The Landing. Well, the Seahawks should stand as an exception, and a cautionary one, and The Landing is not nearby and is not situated in the middle of a neighborhood. Even in the new Barbee Mill site the houses are just two to three stories high, not 6 and 7 stories and the density is far, far less. Another very big issue for me would be the added traffic. The traffic coming on and off of 405 (exit 7, 44th street) is already heavy. I sometimes walk from my house across the overpass to the businesses on the east side of the freeway and I have nearly been hit by cars. The whole area around the interchange is not at all conducive to pedestrians. Now add 800 housing units, 245,000 square feet of office space, restaurants and retail space and where and how is the resulting traffic going to be accommodated? I've read that the state has no plans, and no money, to make any changes to the interchange. In the draft statement the applicants seem to assume the state will make such changes anyway! They also suggest they could run traffic up through Kennydale to the 30th street interchange. This is a treet that is a neighborhood street, not an arterial. It is used by school kids on their way to Kennydale Elementary. That is a ridiculous idea. It shows me that they have no sense of the neighborhood. I also ride my bike along the boulevard bike lanes and down Ripley Lane to connect to the bike path that parallels 405. This is a well used route and is part of what makes Renton a livable city for families. The Seahawks Way section already does not have designated bike lanes in both directions and adding a whole lot more vehicle traffic to that street would make it even more hazardous. In addition to the traffic, I am concerned about huge load that would put on the local power, water and sewer infrastructure. All and all I believe the current proposal should be totally rejected. It doesn't seriously consider the problems it raises for the neighborhood and seems to me to be a flagrant attempt to simply build what they want to build without any real concern for the area. Even their slightly scaled down plan is a no go from my point of view. I feel total rejection of the proposal is the appropriate action. Development of the area must accommodate the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration of my opinions. Tom Baker 1202 N 35ht St Renton, WA 98056 421‐221‐0631 tommbaker@hotmail.com Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-145 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 14 Tom Baker 1. Please see the response to Comment 1 in DEIS Letter 13. 2. Please see the response to Comment 2 in DEIS Letter 13. 3. Please see the response to Comment 3 in DEIS Letter 13. 4. Please see the response to Comment 4 in DEIS Letter 13. 5. Please see the response to Comment 5 in DEIS Letter 13. 6. Please see the response to Comment 6 in DEIS Letter 13. 7. Please see the response to Comment 7 in DEIS Letter 13. 8. Please see the response to Comment 8 in DEIS Letter 13. From: Pete Becker [mailto:mbfamily6@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:44 AM To: Denis Law; Chip Vincent; Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Bob Becker; Mary Becker Subject: Public Comment / Quendall Terminal Project Date: February 2, 2011 To: City of Renton Attn: Mayor Denis Law 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7314 dlaw@rentonwa.gov Copy: Chip Vincent, Planning Director cvincent@rentonwa.gov Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner vdolbee@rentonwa.gov From: Robert George Becker, AIA Mary Becker 1007 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 425 970-3385 rgb@beckerarch.com mbfamily6@gmail.com Subject: Public Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal Draft EIS (LUA09-151) We wish to express our strong opposition to the Quendall Terminal Project. This project belongs in downtown Renton, not in a residential neighborhood on the shores of Lake Washington for the following reasons: 1. As an Architect and Urban Planner, I am disappointed that this project is being supported and advocated in public meetings by the Renton Department of Community and Economic Development. I believe it is the role of the city to state the facts and not be a cheerleader and advocate for projects that are in the DEIS/SEPA phases. This type of planning could be in downtown Kansas, not on the shores of Lake Washington. 2. The DEIS states that this project is in keeping with the scale, density and massing of the Carillon Point project in Kirkland. As a past planning commissioner for 8 years in Kirkland, and a member of the commission when Carillon Point was reviewed and approved, I know this is far from the facts. I would strongly encourage you to visit Carillon Point in Kirkland and see the difference in proposals for yourselves. There is absolutely NO comparison. Carillon Point is sensitive to the lake shore and surrounding neighborhood. Quendall Terminals is a compact, high density housing project that belongs inland by a shopping center. A two story garage wall, that cuts off 1,000 ft. of the lake shore, is not a project to be proud of. 3. The proposed scale, density, height and tight massing of this project, for both proposals, are out of character with Lake Washington residential development. This project is unsuited for this location on the shores of Lake Washington. The buildings are shown to be more than DOUBLE the height of the adjacent residential developments along the shores of Lake Washington in Renton, Bellevue, and Mercer Island. The proposed buildings are close to 90 feet in height and almost the height of the Seahawks/VMAC facility. This extreme massing and height do not belong on this site. 4. Figure 3.7-2 in the DEIS is an inaccurate and misleading rendering that attempts to conceal the height and visual impact of both proposal alternatives. Our home, which is just two homes to the south of this rendering is around 35 foot in height. The rendering should be redone to reflect the 90 foot height, which would make the west elevation along the waterfront approximately 2.67 times as high as our residence. This extreme variation in an adjacent neighborhood is completely contrary to sound planning principals. 5. The DEIS claims that the proposal is consistent with the existing urban character of the immediate and nearby residential neighborhoods. This section of the DEIS needs to be removed and the section needs to be rewritten to reflect the true character of this development in relation to the adjacent existing residential homes that are north and south of the project. There is nothing about this proposal that reflects the character of adjacent neighborhoods. If those writing this section truly believe that this is the case then they are not subjective and they should be removed from passing judgment on this project. 6. This proposed design is more like the Landing residential units that are next to Lowes and across from the Boeing factory. Why is the city supporting a project that belongs in a high density part of the city, like the downtown area? 7. This unique, large, waterfront site, which is the largest remaining piece of undeveloped land on Lake Washington, needs a development that is sensitive to the area, the views, the waterfront, scale and density of existing residential developments along the shores of Lake Washington. The idea that the density is predetermined by the existing zoning is false. If this is the case why bother with the DEIS/SEPA? 8. Why is the prominent outlook feature for the entire site a semicircular parking lot? 9. The 2-story parking garage, which runs almost the entire length of the site, approximately 1,000 ft, runs along the Lake Washington frontage of the Quendall development with absolutely NO undulation. There is nothing in the architectural design to break up the negative, visual impact of this two-story wall facing the Lake. The scale of this lake-facing 2-story garage wall, with openings facing the lake, is unheard of in residential zoning and lakefront zoning. In absolutely no way does it fit the character of the adjacent neighborhoods or the view that the east facing residents of Mercer Island have to look at. There is no municipality that I can recall, that would allow such an unbroken, two story high wall to run uninterrupted for such a long distance. I assume, for the safety of those using the parking garage, that it will be illuminated during the dark hours. This open, lake facing, parking garage facade will be illuminated at night and will give off light and glare to those living on Mercer Island, across from this project. This will have the nighttime appearance of a large lit warehouse development for the entire width of the site. 10. Barbee Mill to the south has a planned density of 5 residential units per acre and contains no commercial space. The Quendall proposal shows 37 residential units per acre plus up to a ¼ million square feet of commercial space that would accommodate up to 2000 daily visitors. This is over 7 times the density of the local residential areas and is in no way “consistent with the existing urban character of the area.” In fact, the existing character of the local area can only accurately be described as residential. Both proposal alternatives, present tremendous compatibility impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. There needs to be a transitional zone between the Quendall Terminal site and Barbee Mill, rather than having a 7 story housing complex up against the south property line of the proposed development. The massing contrast is extreme. 11. The traffic impact assessment in the DEIS is completely unrealistic. To begin with, the analysis in the DEIS does not take into account the traffic study and analysis for the adjacent Hawk’s Landing (Pan Abode) development, which estimated an additional 1400+ automotive trips a day flowing onto Lake Washington Blvd and adding to traffic congestion on the surrounding streets and I-405 exit 7 on-ramps and off-ramps. This traffic impact assessment needs to be redone by another transportation engineering firm that takes into account all the combined traffic impacts on the roads around this site and include all the proposed and existing traffic. N 43rd St, which the engineers show as the primary south entrance to the Quendall Terminal property, will not handle the additional traffic impact from Quendall Terminal. This narrow, residential street is already the primary entrance for the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. This un-striped, 2-lane 135-ft long street, which has two stop signs and a railroad crossing, can in no way accommodate the proposed additional cars per day, plus the cars of Barbee Mill residents. According to the traffic report, 2000 additional cars/day will translate into 700 to 800 ft of traffic jams along Lake Washington Blvd, 43rd and Ripley Lane. The current infrastructure can in no way handle this increased volume, regardless of what the DEIS states. Lake Washington Blvd. is a narrow, 2-lane, scenic, curving, hilly, 25 mph road, with bike lanes in both margins and many residential driveways andno sidewalks. It is already extremely difficult to navigate Lake Washington Blvd, given the present volume of traffic. Furthermore, it is already difficult, with the present volume of traffic to enter or exit the Barbee Mill development at 43rd or 41st during the peak traffic hours and/or on sunny summer days from Lake Washington Blvd. 12. We are concerned that frustrated motorists leaving the Quendall Terminal site, who are eager to avoid the traffic congestion on Lake Washington Blvd., will choose to use Barbee Mill as a major arterial north/south bypass route for Lake Washington Blvd. The streets within Barbee Mill can in no way accommodate this increased traffic volume. 13. Traffic on I-405 at 44th and 30th is already one of the most frequently congested parts of the freeway in both the North and South lanes. WSDOT went on record during the DEIS Scoping Summary, stating that “the potential I-405/NE 44 St interchange improvements project is not funded, and is not likely to be funded in the foreseeable future; the transportation analysis should not assume that this project is complete or will occur.” (Pg 5-EIS Scoping Summary) We believe that approving a major Quendall Terminal development plan without WSDOT commitment, funding, schedule and a plan in place to improve this interchange would have irreversible consequences and would cause a tremendous number of adverse impacts. How can the City of Renton ignore this WDOT requirement? These improvements need to be in place first. 14. There are scenarios in the proposal that suggest using the I-405 30th street onramp/offramp (exit 6) and then routing cars through the hilly, residential neighborhoods in Kennydale along 30th, 40th, Burnett and Park is an option. This is not a realistic alternative and we can’t image the COR Public Works Department buying into this option. 15. Parking—In the Proposal Alternative 2, there are surface level parking lots for 220 cars placed right up against the entire north property line for Barbee Mill. This is in no way consistent with land use compatibility in the neighborhood and will adversely impact property values and quality of life. These lots have the sensitivity of a parking lot at a big box store. Nor is Proposal Alternative 1, which calls for a multi-story building to be placed right up against the north fence of Barbee Mill with two stories of parking garages at the first two levels. These open sided parking garages, with 24 hour security lighting, spilling out of the openings unto the adjacent residential homes is unacceptable. We believe that it is not an acceptable plan to place parking lots, tall buildings and/or delivery entrances right up against the north Barbee Mill fence. 16. We are concerned with the amount of light and glare that would be emitted from the proposed high-density residential buildings (proposed to be as high as 90ft) that will be up against the residential homes to the south. 17. This project should be shelved until the full impact of the EPA remedial action is understood, specified andcompleted. It is impossible to approve a site plan without determining the full impact of the EPA RI/FS requirements. Until the applicant responds to the EPA RI/FS in a public document, this project should be stopped. 18. Superfund Site Carcinogens & The Impact on The Environment—The EPA has tremendous concerns about the tars and creosote products on the Quendall Terminal site, cleanup and the adverse impact the cleanup would have on the Lake, including fishing and swimming and on several species. We share this concern. (EPA ID# WAD980639215). We understand that the EPA has jurisdiction over the remediation and cleanup of the Superfund Site at Quendall Terminals. We are extremely concerned about what carcinogenic contaminants will be released into the air and water (through either surface or aquifer transfer. Pursuing binding development agreements before Superfund cleanup, would be an extremely poor city decision with a tremendously risky outcome. 19. Wetlands— The overall wetlands in the Quendall property are at least twice the size they are portrayed as in the EIS. In particular in the Southwest corner (a small blue dot labeled “H”) is nearly an acre in total size, which is 50-times the size of what is portrayed in the DEIS. The Wetland buffer area for shoreline wetlands should remain at a minimum of 50 ft and should not be reduced for shoreline trails or buildings as currently proposed and shown on figure 2-7. 20. Substituting Wetland “I” or “J”, which is nothing more than a drainage ditch, (per figure 2.6, 2.7 and 2.11) which areseparated by Ripley Lane & the railroad tracks and have absolutely no continuity with the Quendall site is inconsistent with sound environmental planning concepts. 21. Wildlife—The EIS makes no mention of existing wildlife or mitigation for their loss of habitat from the proposed construction. There are ospreys, eagles, herons, deer, hummingbirds, wolfs and other species living in the wetlands and natural habitat of the Quendall Terminal property. 22. We recommend that the City reject the current binding proposal as outlined in the Draft EIS and instruct the developer to start over with plans that properly address accumulative traffic issues, are more in keeping with scale and density of existing Lake Washington residential development and respect the lake and on site environmental systems. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-151 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 15 Robert and Mary Becker 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. Your comment is noted for the record. No decision has been made on the project to date. The EIS is intended to be a tool to aid the City and other regulators in their decision-making process. 3. The DEIS did not compare the height, bulk, and scale of the proposed Quendall Terminals Project to the Carillon Point project in the City of Kirkland. As discussed in FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24), it is acknowledged that in general, the proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site would be greater in scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. Proposed individual buildings would be greater in height and bulk than buildings in the adjacent Barbee Mill residential development to the south of the site. However, the proposed individual buildings would generally be similar in height and bulk to buildings in the existing Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility to the north, proposed Hawk’s Landing development to the east, and commercial and multifamily residential areas further to the east, beyond I-405. Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative based on comments on the DEIS, and continued coordination with and input from EPA and the City of Renton. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes modifications to enhance the compatibility of proposed redevelopment with surrounding uses (i.e., reduction of overall development level, modulation of building heights across the site – including along the shoreline, modifications in building materials, and addition of landscaping). The proposed ground-level would include a single level of parking and proposed development. The proposed parking garages would include architectural elements to enhance the aesthetic appeal of these structures. See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative 4. As noted in the FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24), it is acknowledged that the proposed buildings would be greater in height and bulk than the adjacent residential buildings to the south. However, the proposed buildings would generally be similar in height and bulk to the existing and proposed commercial and multifamily buildings to the north and east. The proposed maximum building height of 64 feet would be well within the 125-foot maximum building height allowed by the site’s COR zoning classification, and would be lower than the 115- foot Seahawks Training Facility indoor field to the north. The Preferred Alternative includes the four-story Building SW4 in the southwestern portion of the site, adjacent to the Barbee Mill development. 5. The methods used for the visual simulations were confirmed in the EIS Addendum, including confirming the accuracy of the 3D model and the camera’s alignment and location. A perspective illustration was also created to demonstrate that the visual simulations accurately depict the views from the selected viewpoints (see EIS Addendum Figure 3.2-2). This illustration shows the view of the proposed development from Mercer Island (Viewpoint 1) and incorporates a 125-foot high scale, broken into 10- Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-152 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments foot increments, that extends along the shoreline, through the center of the site, and along the site’s rear property line. As shown in the illustration, the massing of the buildings in the Barbee Mill development (approximately 36 feet high) coincide with floor three and four of the Preferred Alternative. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Aesthetics/Views Response 2 – page 2-29) for details on the methods used for the visual simulations included in the DEIS and EIS Addendum. 6. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 3 in this letter and FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24). 7. Please see the response to Comment 2 in this letter. 8. Your comment is noted for the record. RMC Section 4-2-120B establishes the development standards for the COR zone, including minimum and maximum residential density standards. Proposed redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would be within COR residential density range. . 9. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes a revised view corridor along Street “B” that would include a roundabout with landscaping at the terminus of Street “B”, without parking. See EIS Addendum Figure 2-8 and 2-9 for a conceptual view along Street “B”. 10. As described in Chapter 2 of the EIS Addendum and illustrated in EIS Addendum Figures 2-5 through 2-10, the proposed parking garages would include architectural elements to enhance the aesthetic appeal of these structures. Street-level, under- building parking areas would be concealed from sidewalks and streets by retail uses along certain facades. Where this parking would extend to the exterior of the building, elements such as architectural façade components, trellises, berms, and landscaping would be used for screening. This FEIS identifies project mitigation measures that would further enhance the aesthetic character of the ground level of the proposed buildings, including: 1) reducing the amount of required parking so that parking could be set back from the exterior of the buildings, allowing other uses to occupy these areas, and 2) providing vertical and/or horizontal modulation along the lake side of the structures to break up the larger structures (see FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). A lighting system would be provided inside and outside of the proposed under-building parking structures. This lighting would be visible from surrounding areas, including Mercer Island. However, the proposed exterior lighting would be directed downward and away from surrounding buildings, properties and Lake Washington to minimize impacts to adjacent uses and the shoreline of the lake (see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas, Light and Glare Response 1 – page 2-32, and Aesthetics/Views mitigation measure F7 in FEIS Chapter 1). 11. As part of the Preferred Alternative, modifications were made to enhance the compatibility of the proposed redevelopment with surrounding uses, particularly residential uses to the south, including Barbee Mill. Proposed Building SW4 near the southwestern boundary of the site would be four stories in height, setback approximately 100 feet from the property line (at its closest point) to provide a buffer between the site Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-153 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments and surrounding uses; landscape screening would also be provided within this area and would be designed to provide a partial visual screen between the proposed development and adjacent development. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details. 12. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum represent comprehensive reviews of transportation impacts of existing and future traffic operations in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site. They specifically account for general and discrete pipeline development (including Barbee Mill, Hawks Landing and the Kennydale Apartments); account for peak utilization of the Seahawks Training Facility; consider regional growth and traffic demand in the vicinity with and without future planned widening of I-405; and, reflect the latest available regional forecasts of population and employment levels throughout the Puget Sound (see DEIS Appendix H and EIS Addendum Appendix E for details). In addition, in 2014 the City of Renton conducted a review of cumulative transportation impacts along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor, including the Quendall Terminals Project and five other known pipeline projects (City of Renton Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton, October 2014). The review concluded that project- specific mitigation without I-405 improvements for Quendall Terminals would be adequate in the near-term and the relocation of the future signalized access into the site from Ripley Lane to N 43rd Street should be considered. As a result, mitigation measures for the Quendall Terminals Project have been modified in this FEIS to allow the City, WSDOT, the applicant and other adjacent properties to further consider this potential relocation in future design of the interchange system (see FEIS Appendix C for details). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 13. The proposed primary site access would be via the Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street intersection (see FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). Access via N 43rd Street would be provided, with an estimated 25 percent of all project traffic using this access. As shown in the DEIS and EIS Addendum analyses, with this estimated distribution of project traffic, no substantial traffic operational impacts are anticipated at the existing Barbee Mill access (N 43rd Street) (see DEIS Appendix H and EIS Addendum Appendix E for details). Subsequent to the issuance of the EIS Addendum, the City of Renton completed the 2014 Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton and determined that the Quendall Terminals Project should install a traffic signal at the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection as opposed to the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. However, if the traffic signal and configuration of N 43rd Street have not been constructed prior to WSDOT improvements at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, the City will consider changing the location of this signal to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard. An engineering study will be completed at that time to support the determination of the location for the installation of the traffic signal at either the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection or the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection (see FEIS Appendix C for details). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-154 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments As noted in EIS Addendum Table 3.4-4, significant vehicle queuing of 800 feet or more is estimated to only occur on Ripley Lane as a result of additional project traffic without project mitigation. With implementation of project traffic mitigation, general traffic operations and vehicle queuing are estimated to be reduced substantially and fall within acceptable traffic operational conditions (estimated at approximately 200 feet for the southbound queue for left turns on Ripley Lane and approximately 250 feet or less for eastbound queues on Lake Washington Boulevard -- no adjacent intersections would be blocked; see FEIS Figure 2-1 for a depiction of the traffic movements at this intersection). See FEIS Table 2-3 for a summary of vehicle queues at the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. Mitigation measures identified in this FEIS include transportation improvements that would be required to mitigate project traffic impacts with or without WSDOT I-405 Improvements. Without any I-405 Improvements, significant arterial and intersection improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard, at site access intersections, and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramp junctions would be required to be completed as part of the project (see FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). 14. Accessing the Quendall Terminals site through the Barbee Mill neighborhood, as an alternative to travelling along Lake Washington Boulevard, represents approximately 800 lineal feet between NE 41st Street and N 43rd Street. It is not expected that using a circuitous route through the Barbee Mill neighborhood would be a better choice for such a short distance. The traffic operational analysis conducted for the DEIS and EIS Addendum (see Appendices H and E to those documents, respectively) concluded that with implementation of the project mitigation measures and/or I-405 Improvements, forecasted LOS on nearby intersections and arterials would not result in any significant adverse traffic impacts along Lake Washington Boulevard. 15. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum assumed two transportation scenarios: 1) future development of the Quendall Terminals site with the NE 44th Street/I- 405 Improvements, and 2) future development without the NE 44th Street/I-405 Improvements. Mitigation measures were identified for both scenarios to minimize vehicle trips and traffic impacts generated by the Preferred Alternative (see FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of the mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). The assumptions for WSDOT improvements under the “with I-405 Improvements” scenario are still valid. However, WSDOT is presently considering phasing of the improvements. 16. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum did not recommend routing any project traffic to the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange system. The analyses indicate that without any I-405 Improvements by WSDOT or intersection improvements at the ramp junctions at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, project-generated traffic to/from the south of the project site is forecast to shift to access the freeway at the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange as well as other parallel routes east and west of I-405 during peak commute periods. This potential diversion of traffic was found to have no significant adverse traffic impacts on the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor or key intersections that would serve these diverted trips via Burnett Avenue N and N 30th Street (see DEIS Appendix H and EIS Addendum Appendix E for details). Also see the Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-155 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation page 2-10) for additional analysis of the Park Avenue N corridor and the N 30th Street/I-405 ramps. 17. Your comments regarding DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 are noted for the record. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes modifications to enhance the compatibility of proposed redevelopment 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). As part of the proposed building modulation, Building SW4 located adjacent to the southwestern property lines would be a maximum of four stories high. Under the Preferred Alternative, the 40-foot setback from the southern property line would be from the 1-story parking garage in the southeastern portion of the site, and the 200-foot setback from portions of the four-story residential Building SW4 in the southwestern portion of the site. Landscaping would also be provided along the southern property line and would be designed to provide a partial visual screen between the proposed development and adjacent development (see EIS Addendum Figure 2-3). 18. The Preferred Alternative includes mitigation measures to address potential light and glare impacts on surrounding uses, including the following: Exterior building lighting, parking lot lighting, and pedestrian lighting shall be directed downward and away from surrounding buildings, properties, and the shoreline of Lake Washington to minimize impacts on adjacent uses and fish. Reflectivity of glazing materials, as well as the use of shading devices, shall be considered as part of the façade design in order to minimize the potential glare impacts to surrounding uses. See FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 19. Your comment is noted for the record. In February 2010, the City of Renton determined that a complete application for development of the Quendall Terminals site had been submitted, and pursuant to RMC 4.8, the City of Renton was required to process and review the application. Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS and receipt of a letter from EPA regarding the environmental baseline (post-remediation conditions) assumptions, SEPA environmental review of the project was placed on hold by the City subject to further review and feedback from EPA. In March 2012, EPA issued a letter indicating that the environmental baseline assumptions represented in the DEIS and EIS Addendum were reasonable given the expected general outcome of the Record of Decision (ROD), with an increase of the minimum shoreline setback area to 100 feet from the lake edge (see DEIS Letter 4). The Preferred Alternative incorporates EPA’s recommended shoreline setback. Final, detailed plans for the re-establishment of wetlands and their buffers will be developed in accordance with EPA’s Record of Decision (ROD) or any Natural Resource Damages (NRD) settlement as part of the remediation process, prior to redevelopment. A new mitigation measure has been added to this FEIS indicating that in the event that the issued EPA ROD is different than what is assumed for this EIS, the City reviewing Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-156 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments official shall determine whether the applicant shall be required to prepare additional SEPA review for the project (see Environmental Health mitigation measure C10 in FEIS Chapter 1). See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Environmental Health – page2-19) for details on the relationship between the site cleanup/remediation and proposed redevelopment. 20. EPA will ensure that contaminants that are present in site soils and groundwater from past industrial operations will not be released into the air and water during or following site cleanup/remediation. The EPA cleanup/remediation process for the site and associated institutional control requirements will ensure that unacceptable exposures to contaminated soils/dust and vapors will not occur during or following construction. An Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) will be implemented to prevent the excavation of soils, installation of utilities, and other site disturbances without prior EPA approval. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Environmental Health – page 2- 19) for details on the relationship between the site cleanup/remediation and proposed redevelopment. 21. The wetland delineation that was included in the DEIS was conducted according to the methods defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Corps 2008), and DOE’s Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (DOE 1997). The method for delineating wetlands is based on the presence of three parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Hydrophytic vegetation is “the macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present.” Hydric soils are “formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.” Wetland hydrology “encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface for a sufficient duration during the growing season” (DOE 1997). 22. The retention/re-establishment of wetland area adjacent to Wetland J on the east side of Seahawks Way or Ripley Lane is intended to replace current wetland areas with a wider range of wetland function and value. New wetland areas adjacent to Wetland J would provide an improvement to habitat quality and overall function from that provided by existing wetlands, which are currently compromised by the presence of soil and water contamination. Habitat function at the expanded Wetland J would also benefit from improved structure and diversity, including emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested habitats. While some stormwater runoff serves as a source of hydrology to the stream, Wetland J is a depressional wetland with emergent and scrub-shrub habitat. The expansion of Wetland J is intended to compensate for impacts to on-site wetlands not associated with Lake Washington (Wetlands B, C, E, and G) and is expected to replace functions lost as part of remediation activities (prior to any redevelopment). The expansion of Wetland J would diversify and improve wetland habitat in this part of the site over the current mix of invasive species in the wetland buffer, primarily Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass. EPA will be responsible for review and approval of the proposed wetland replacement plan for the site through a separate process associated with site cleanup and remediation. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-157 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 23. As discussed in DEIS Section 3.2, Critical Areas, and Appendix E, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2009; also 2012) Priority Habitats and Species database shows no documented occurrences of priority species or habitats on the site or in the immediate vicinity, other than the presence of wetlands onsite along the lakeshore and listed fish species offsite within Lake Washington to the west and May Creek to the south. Bald eagles (a state sensitive species) may occasionally perch on the site, but the nearest known breeding site occurs on Mercer Island approximately one mile to the west, across Lake Washington. Although indicated as potentially occurring within King County by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012), the gray wolf has not been consistently or reliably documented within King County, particularly within the urbanized Puget Sound lowlands. Known or suspected occurrences of these wolves in Washington center on more remote, forested habitats in the north Cascades, and none have been recorded anywhere near the project site. Ospreys are known to occur in the area, and may use nest platforms constructed along the south end of the Seahawks Training Facility to the north and near the mouth of May Creek on the old Barbee Mill property to the south. DEIS Section 3.2, Critical Areas, and Appendix E evaluated the impacts of the proposed project on wildlife habitat. As described in that document, all of the existing vegetation communities would be removed as part of the remediation plan, prior to site development. Based on the cleanup/remediation process to date, this could include capping of the site area west of Lake Washington Boulevard, and re- establishment/expansion of wetland and upland habitat along the shoreline of the lake. Thus, the presumed existing/baseline condition for impact analysis in the EIS is post- remediation, and the majority of the site is expected to consist of bare soil, except along the Lake Washington shore, where a shoreline restoration plan will be implemented. The upland portion of the Main Property could be temporarily re-vegetated via seeding of herbaceous species following remediation to prevent erosion and sedimentation, depending on the anticipated timing of redevelopment. Consequently, redevelopment of the upland areas onsite is not expected to remove significant habitat features or displace wildlife from these areas. Some disturbance of the re-vegetated shoreline habitat from human and construction activity could occur during construction. However, this vegetation would likely be relatively recently established and initially provide limited habitat during this period. The Preferred Alternative discussed in the EIS Addendum would include a somewhat larger natural area along the shore of Lake Washington than DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, resulting in slightly less impact to wetland and wildlife habitat. Overall, impacts from human disturbance would not differ significantly from Alternatives 1 and 2, however. EPA will evaluate the impacts of vegetation removal and associated wildlife/habitat impacts due to cleanup/remediation activities, as well as the re-establishment of shoreline habitat, through a separate review process. 24. Your comment is noted for the record. Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 1 Date: January 20, 2011 To: City of Renton Planning Department Attn: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7314 vdolbee@rentonwa.gov From: Name: Robert and Mary “Pete’ Becker Address: 1007 N 42nd Place, Renton, WA 98056 Phone Number: 425.970-3385 Email Address: rgb@beckerarch.com mbfamily6@gamial.com I spoke at the comment hearing at the City of Renton Council Chambers on January 4, 2011 and several of the comments that I made at that hearing are incorporated into this document. We are not adverse to development on this site, but we are adamantly opposed to the development proposed in the Quendall Terminal Draft EIS (LUA09-151). It is out of scale with the residential neighborhood; it is too dense; it will cause undue traffic problems; it will produce light and glare into the adjacent residential neighborhood and appears to ignore existing on site environmental conditions. Subject: Public Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal Draft EIS (LUA09-151) Following are our comments regarding the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal site as outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). As homeowners, tax payers and citizens of the City of Renton, we believe that the proposed and binding Quendall development proposal has tremendous negative and adverse impacts to the environment, property, the neighborhood and our Barbee Mill community and should NOT be approved. 1) Size & Scale Impact a. Scale—The proposed scale, density and height of the buildings in both alternatives are completely out-of-scale, incompatible and inconsistent with all neighborhoods on the entire shoreline of Lake Washington. The typical height limit for buildings along the Lake is 35 ft. The proposed heights and densities exceed those of Downtown Kirkland, Carillon Point, Bellevue and Seattle’s Lake Washington facing neighborhoods. Furthermore, the proposed scale, density and height of the Quendall proposal are inconsistent and incompatible with adjacent neighborhoods, the East facing shoreline of Mercer Island. It will completely dwarf the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. b. The proposed buildings would be more than 40 ft taller than the height of the Barbee Mill homes. And they would be more than double the height of all nearby residences! The proposed buildings are nearly 90 ft in height although they are marked as 77 ft on the applicants elevation drawings, which is 3/4 the height of the Seahawks/VMAC Facility and the Boeing Airplane Factory. Again this is completely out-of-scale with the Barbee Mill neighborhood AND anything else along the Lake Washington shoreline. (DEIS 3.5-12) Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 2 i. Figure 3.7-2 in the DEIS is an inaccurate and misleading rendering that attempts to conceal the height and visual impact of both proposal alternatives. c. The proposed architectural design resembles an industrial park and does not have the look or the feel of a residential neighborhood. It is certainly “not consistent with the existing urban character” (as claimed in DEIS 3.5- 12) of any of the immediate and nearby residential neighborhoods, including Barbee Mill. The proposed scale, density and character would be an eyesore no matter what angle it is viewed from within the adjacent neighborhoods or from lakefront properties along Mercer. d. The proposed design looks more like the Landing, which is sandwiched in between a shopping center and the country’s second largest airplane factory and which is NOT located on the shores of one of the most beautiful lakes in the state and which is NOT located in the middle of an existing residential area. e. The Applicant claims that this area along the Lake Washington shoreline is currently a high-density urban environment. (DEIS 3.5-12) This statement is misleading and couldn’t be farther from the truth as all neighboring areas are completely residential (with the exception of the Seahawks facility.) f. The proposed designs and project scope, scale and density are inappropriate for the shoreline of Lake Washington and do not in any way take advantage of the Lake front location and view. The buildings face each other instead of the Lake. The primary lake view outlook and central lakefront architectural feature is a semi-circular parking lot. i. The Mayor stated in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Renton still has some amazing waterfront property on Lake Washington.” We couldn’t agree more. However, this proposal in no way takes advantage of or capitalizes on this amazing piece of waterfront property. In fact, the proposal looks like the City of Renton has taken a giant step backwards by proposing a self- facing vs. lake facing, residential complex, retail and office park with limited green space and tree canopy. This is not responsible growth. Nor is it responsible stewardship and development of the largest piece of remaining undeveloped land along the shoreline of beautiful Lake Washington. ii. The proposal calls for a straight, walled, 2-story parking garage, approximately 1000 ft in length, to traverse the entire Lake Washington frontage of the Quendall development with absolutely no undulation. There is nothing in the architectural design to break up the negative, visual impact of this two-story wall facing the Lake. This scale of this lake-facing 2-story garage wall is unheard of in residential zoning and lakefront zoning and does not fit the character nor complement the adjacent neighborhoods. g. The proposed development does NOT complement or add value to the existing neighborhoods especially neighboring Barbee Mill. Instead, this development would be tremendously destructive to the property value for the surrounding neighborhoods (including Barbee Mill, Kennydale, Newcastle and the East-facing side of Mercer Island) and detrimental to the quality of life for residents. 2) Density Impact Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 3 a. This proposal repeatedly and misleadingly (DEIS 3.9-1) describes the Quendall development as “compatible with the existing neighborhoods.” This is preposterous and we strongly disagree. For example, Barbee Mill to the south has a planned density of 5 residential units per acre and contains no commercial (office or retail) space. The Quendall proposal is for 37 residential units per acre plus up to a ¼ million square feet of commercial space that would accommodate up to 2000 daily visitors. This is approximately 7 times the density of the local residential areas and is in no way “consistent with the existing urban character of the area.” In fact, the existing character of the local area can only accurately be described as residential. Both proposal alternatives, present tremendous compatibility impacts with the surrounding neighborhoods. b. Commercial/residential buildings in Renton and in the greater Eastside area, have tended to have a history of high-turnover, high-vacancy and have not proven to be particularly commercially viable. Our concern is that tenants of apartments and commercial space will have no vested interest in the neighborhood, the community or in the future vision for the city of Renton. And that such a development, could wind up sitting vacant for many years to come. 3) Traffic, Transportation & Parking Impact a. The traffic impact assessment in the DEIS is completely unrealistic. To begin with, the analysis in the DEIS does not take into account the traffic study and analysis for the adjacent Hawk’s Landing (Pan Abode) development, which estimated an additional 1400+ automotive trips a day flowing onto Lake Washington Blvd and adding to traffic congestion on the surrounding streets and I-405 exit 7 on-ramps and off-ramps. i. Before this or any other area development proposal is approved, a new, comprehensive traffic analysis should be done that focuses on the combined traffic impact of: Quendall Terminal property, Hawk’s Landing/Pan Abode property, Seahawks/VMAC Facility, Ripley Lane neighborhood, Barbee Mill, Kennydale neighborhood, I-405 congestion, commuters trying to bypass 405 congestion on Lake Washington Blvd and the City’s goal of providing direct access to Lake Washington from Park Dr & Sunset Blvd. This comprehensive traffic analysis should reflect all existing, proposed and potential developments and their collective impact on the immediate vicinity and existing neighborhoods. WSDOT analysis, future plans and funding for I-405 must be factored into the traffic analysis and any infrastructure planning. (Reference: Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009) b. The proposal calls for an unacceptable increase in traffic with an estimated 2000 cars a day. Add to that, the estimated 1400 automotive trips a day from the proposed Hawks Landing development. The current infrastructure can in no way support the increases being proposed. There are no proposed plans to improve or widen the immediate roads or build the proper egress and ingress access roads to/from the proposed Quendall development. c. The proposal calls for N 43rd St to serve as the primary entrance to the Quendall property. This narrow, residential street is already the primary entrance for the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. This un-striped, Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 4 2-lane 135-ft long street, which has two stop signs and a railroad crossing, can in no way accommodate the proposed additional 2000 cars per day PLUS the cars of Barbee Mill residents. Furthermore, 43rd has already become plagued by a dangerous trends of drivers making hazardous u-turns and 3-point turns in the intersection of 43rd and Lake Washington Blvd. Given all this, it is shocking that the DEIS does NOT list NE 43rd St as a roadway condition concern. NE 43rd St is in no way sufficient to serve as the primary entrance for both Quendall and Barbee Mill it cannot safely and effectively accommodate the additional influx of 2000 cars per day. This proposal will result in intolerable traffic congestion, increased risk of accidents, noise pollution and egress problems for Barbee Mill Homeowners. i. 2000 additional cars/day will translate into 700 to 800 ft of traffic jams along Lake Washington Blvd, 43rd and Ripley Lane. The current infrastructure can in no way handle this increased volume. Lake Washington Blvd. is a narrow, 2-lane, scenic, curving, hilly, 25 mph road with bike lanes in both margins and many residential driveways. It is already extremely difficult to navigate Lake Washington Blvd given the present volume of traffic. Furthermore, it is already difficult with the present volume of traffic to enter or exit the Barbee Mill development at 43rd or 41st during the peak traffic hours and/or on sunny summer days from Lake Washington Blvd. Lake Washington Blvd does not have the capacity to handle the additional 2000/day proposed additional cars or 3400+ if you factor in Hawk’s Landing . And, any serious infrastructure modifications to Lake Washington Blvd would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhoods, the environmentally sensitive May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline. 1. As a demonstration, one need to look no further than the congestion, parking and traffic nightmare that was created on 1/14/11 when hundreds of Seahawk Fans (including children and pets) and their vehicles descended on the intersection of Ripley Lane and Lake Washington Blvd. Cars were parked all over 43rd, 44th, Lake Washington & Ripley Lane. It made it nearly impossible to enter/exit Barbee Mill on 43rd. Fans also jammed the 30th Bridge and surrounding Kennydale neighborhoods, which has been proposed as an alternate travel route for the Quendall Property. 2. As a demonstration, congestion is also extremely heavy when during the Seahawk Training Days in August, despite the fact that the Seahawks arrange for buses and parking in the Landing in their effort to mitigate what would be the adverse impact of an approximate 2000 cars per day from coming into and parking in the neighborhoods adjacent to Ripley Lane including Barbee Mill. 3. We do not understand why the proposal does not bring traffic directly into the center of the Quendall property via a new access road which would need to be built to cross Ripley Lane and that would be more capable of handling that volume of traffic. However, we are not sure that any Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 5 development plan that calls for 2000 or more additional cars/day on area roads can be adequately addressed through existing, modified or new infrastructure. 4. The details of the traffic analysis for Lake Washington Blvd at 43rd have been left out of (Table 3.9-1) AND there is no mention in the proposal of improving 43rd. ii. We are concerned that frustrated motorists who are eager to avoid the traffic congestion on Lake Washington Blvd will either make dangerous u-turns and/or choose to use Barbee Mill as a major arterial north/south bypass route for Lake Washington Blvd. The streets within Barbee Mill can in no way accommodate this increased traffic volume. This bypass traffic would present a tremendous risk and inconvenience for Barbee Mill residents. It would hamper ability to safely enter and exit our own neighborhood and residences. The added traffic on Barbee Mill’s streets would create a public safety risks for residents as well as for area pedestrians, joggers, cyclists, children in strollers and pets that enjoy our streets. We are extremely concerned about the added danger of so many motorists trying to navigate the already hazardous blind curve at 42nd (just shortly after you turn into Barbee Mill from 43rd). The bypass traffic would also generate significant noise pollution. We believe that this proposal and its traffic volume will not only impact Barbee Mill homeowner and community safety but that it will adversely impact and reduce property values and quality of life for Barbee Mill homeowners. d. Traffic on I-405 at 44th and 30th is already one of the most frequently congested parts of the freeway in both the North and South lanes. Congestion occurs not only at peak traffic hours but throughout the majority of the day. The freeway, just as the neighboring roads, can in no way accommodate an additional influx of 2000 + 1,400 cars for the Hawks Landing per day. Throughout the proposal, the applicant has stated that various traffic impacts could be mitigated through a coordinated effort with WSDOT. However, WSDOT went on record during the DEIS Scoping Summary stating that “the potential I-405/NE 44 St interchange improvements project is not funded, and is not likely to be funded in the foreseeable future; the transportation analysis should not assume that this project is complete or will occur.” (Pg 5-EIS Scoping Summary) We believe that approving a major Quendall development plan without WSDOT commitment, funding, schedule and a plan in place to improve this interchange would have irreversible consequences and would cause a tremendous number of adverse impacts. i. There are scenarios in the proposal that suggest using the I-405 30th street onramp/offramp (exit 6) and then routing cars through the hilly, residential neighborhoods in Kennydale along 30th, 40th, Burnett and Park. This is not a realistic alternative and is equally as dangerous as cars choosing to use Barbee Mill as a shortcut. And it could encourage drivers travelling northbound and southbound on Lake Washington Blvd to take a shortcut through Barbee Mill. e. Transportation—The proposal does not include any plans to develop, improve or encourage public transit in the vicinity. This means that there Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 6 would be no alternative form of transportation for the estimated 2000+ daily visitors and tenants. It is not an environmentally responsible transportation design solution to place 2000 additional cars onto neighborhood streets and the lakefront in this residential community without providing realistic transportation alternatives. i. In the Mayor’s 2010 State of the City Address, he declared “I believe that it is vital that we have the right infrastructure in place now to serve the needs of our future. We will continue to work with the state and regional transportation organizations to make critical investments to create an affective transportation system that allows goods and people to move efficiently.” The Quendall proposal does not provide for any investments to create an affective transportation solution in the area NOR does it put the right infrastructure in place to serve the needs of the immediate area and alleviate traffic and noise and air pollution impacts and public safety risks. f. Parking—In the Proposal Alternative 2, there are surface level parking lots for 220 cars up placed right up against the entire north property line for Barbee Mill. This is in no way consistent with land use compatibility in the neighborhood and will adversely impact property values and quality of life. Nor is Proposal Alternative 1, which calls for a 6-story building to be placed right up against the north fence of Barbee Mill. We believe that it is not an acceptable plan to place parking lots, tall buildings and/or delivery entrances right up against the north Barbee Mill fence. i. We are concerned that if fees are charged for parking in the Quendall development, that visitors and tenants will seek out free parking in the adjacent neighborhood streets especially at Barbee Mill—which already suffers from insufficient street parking for residents and guests. 4) Public Safety Impact a. Cyclist Safety/Pedestrian/Runners Safety—Lake Washington Blvd was never meant to be a major thoroughfare. It is a hilly, scenic route through residential neighborhoods. It has no sidewalks and is very poorly lit at night. In fact, it is already quite dangerous on winter nights to turn into the Barbee Mill development at either 43rd or 44th St as there are no streetlights at either intersection. Lake Washington Blvd (in addition to Barbee Mill streets) is currently used not only by vehicles but also by pedestrians walking their pets and children, joggers and bicyclists. Given that there are no sidewalks and poor lighting along the road, such an increase in cars would not only cause traffic gridlock and backups but would also present a tremendous safety hazard to all using the bike lanes and shoulders for purposes other than driving. i. As a demonstration, a Barbee Mill resident counted more than 140 cyclists using Lake Washington Blvd and crossing 43rd St in a 90- minute period on a recent summer Saturday morning. b. We are concerned that the proposed public access trail and above ground parking lots located right against Barbee Mill North fence would invite evening transient traffic and loitering that could lead to crime. This fence backs up against an existing quiet residential neighborhood. This would not only adversely impact quality of life for Barbee Mill residents but also reduce property values. Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 7 c. We are concerned that the proposed traffic volume and insufficient infrastructure, would affect the ability of emergency vehicles and first responders to quickly access the Barbee Mill community (and Ripley Lane neighborhood) in the event of an emergency. This puts the lives and health of residents at risk. d. We are concerned that a newly accessible open public space, trails, and parking lots may become an attractive target to a criminal element and would bring an increase risk of crime, vandalism, gang activity, graffiti, noise, and other negative and unwanted activity that would put neighborhood homeowners’ safety and security at risk. 5) Light, Glare & Noise Impact a. We have tremendous concern over the amount light and glare that would be emitted from the proposed high-density residential buildings (proposed to be as high as 90ft) and the evening and night-time restaurant patrons and shoppers in the retail development. We also are concerned about the noise pollution that would come from delivery trucks, giant HVAC units, 2000+ cars/day and ensuing traffic, residential tenants, office workers, retail shoppers and potential bar/restaurant patrons. The light, glare and noise from the proposed Quendall development would adversely impact quality of life and property values for the residents and homeowners of Barbee Mill. 6) Environmental Impact a. The true baseline character of the Quendall property is unknown until the EPA mandated remedial action is fully specified and completed. We believe that the DEIS proposes prematurely, approval of a BINDING site plan for specifications of square feet of various building types, number of parking spaces, roads, traffic and egress to and from the development. Approving the BINDING plan PRIOR TO completed the mandated remedial clean up of the Superfund sight is not only unwise and imprudent but the long term consequences and negative impacts are just too great. As homeowners, this is not the legacy we want to have to live with nor is what we want for our health, our quality of life and our property values. b. Mayor Law declared in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Clean, healthy air; high quality drinking water; and trails and green open spaces are key to keeping our city a great place to live and work. Expanding our tree canopy, creating a better trail system, and protecting our environment provides many benefits to the city and boosts property values by making neighborhoods greener.” Unfortunately, the current proposal for Quendall runs completely contrary to the Mayor’s pledge. c. Superfund Site Carcinogens & The Impact on The Environment—The The EPA has tremendous concerns about the carcinogenic substances on the Quendall site, cleanup and the adverse impact the cleanup would have on the Lake, including fishing and swimming and on several species. We share this concern. (EPA ID# WAD980639215). i. They state: “The primary contaminants of concern are carcinogenic PAHs and benzene. These contaminants are found in the soil and ground water throughout the site. These compounds are found at concentrations well above State cleanup levels for residential and industrial sites. At some locations on the site, creosote product has been found under the surface. In some Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 8 areas the product is four to six feet thick. Releases of these contaminants to Lake Washington are of particular concern. Lake Washington is used for a variety of recreational purposes including fishing and swimming. The southern end of Lake Washington, including the area where the site is located, is considered prime habitat for rearing of juvenile Chinook, which is a Federal Threatened Species, and other salmon stocks. The Cedar River, which enters Lake Washington approximately two miles from the site, supports the largest sockeye run in the contiguous United States. Lake Washington also supports several sensitive environments including habitat for bull trout and the bald eagle. In addition, there are two swimming beaches located within one half mile of the site.” As homeowners at Barbee Mill, we enjoy having access to the shoreline in our development and do not want to see it adversely impacted by release of contaminates nor do we want to put the health of our families at risk. d. We understand that the EPA has jurisdiction over the remediation and cleanup of the Superfund Site at Quendall Terminals. We are extremely concerned about what carcinogenic contaminants will be released into the air and water (through either surface or aquifer transfer) and into our neighborhoods and into our shoreline and May Creek as a result of the initial cleanup process. We are also extremely concerned the adverse impact that the proposed mitigation, landfilling, grading, piling driving and other redevelopment activities will have on our neighborhoods and our residents. Furthermore, the DEIS proposes no dust control measures during the construction process to minimize contaminant transportation to Barbee Mill Homes. We believe strongly that it is NOT PRUDENT OR RESPONSIBLE to approve any BINDING redevelopment proposal for this site until the remediation and cleanup of this critical Superfund site has been thoroughly planned and safely planned, executed and effectively completed by the EPA. To expedite the redevelopment process in order to pursue redevelopment income, puts at risk and adversely affects the health and lives of the immediate neighborhood residents, users of Lake Washington and the existing wildlife. Pursuing binding development agreements BEFORE Superfund cleanup, would be an extremely poor decision with a tremendously risky outcome. e. Wetlands— The overall wetlands in the Quendall property are at least twice the size they are portrayed as in the EIS. In particular in the Southwest corner (a small blue dot labeled “H”) is nearly an acre in total size, which is 50-times the size of what is portrayed in the DEIS. i. The Wetland buffer area for shoreline wetlands should remain at a minimum of 50 ft and should not be reduced for shoreline trails or buildings as currently proposed and shown on figure 2-7. ii. Substituting Wetland “I” or “J”, which is nothing more than a drainage ditch, (per figure 2.6, 2.7 and 2.11) which are separated by Ripley Lane & the railroad tracks and have absolutely no continuity with the Quendall site are not adequate or appropriate solutions for mitigating onsite wetlands throughout the Quendall site including adjacent to Barbee Mill. f. Wildlife—The EIS makes no mention of existing wildlife or mitigation for their loss of habitat from the proposed construction. There are ospreys, Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 9 eagles, herons, deer, hummingbirds, and other species living in the wetlands and natural habitat of the Quendall property. CONCLUSIONS 1) We recommend that the City does NOT PROCEED with the current BINDING proposal as outlined in the Draft EIS. Of the three alternatives proposed, we believe that the ONLY viable alternative is that of “NO ACTION.” 2) We certainly hope that Mayor Law meant what he pledged in his 2010 State of The City address when he stated: “By engaging citizens to participate in the process we are starting to create a picture of a city that is a leader in growth management.” a. Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, City Planners and Hearing Examiner, as citizens of Renton we are participating in the DEIS public hearing process and we are loudly saying that the proposals outlined in the DEIS for the Quendall Terminal Redevelopment are in no way in alignment with that goal of responsible growth management and would have tremendous adverse impacts on the surrounding community. 3) Mayor Law also concluded his 2010 State of the City address with these words: “I am optimistic about the future. I am optimistic because people in our community are willing to step up and do what is necessary; because it is through partnerships that we tackle tough issues; and because we never quit planning for the future of this great community.” a. So here we are, the people of Renton stepping up and tackling the tough issues of a poorly thought out, extremely inappropriate and binding DEIS proposal that is completely out of character with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. IF approved and developed, the proposed Quendall development would be a devastating destruction to the shoreline of Lake Washington and to the surrounding community. This proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Property is definitely NOT what we want to see in the future of our great community. 4) We believe that this proposal would have a tremendously adverse impact on the existing adjacent neighborhoods especially our Barbee Mill community. The proposed Quendall development would negatively impact and affect traffic, public safety, quality of life and property values in Barbee Mill and surrounding neighborhoods. 5) As homeowners, taxpayers and citizens of the City of Renton, we urge the City of Renton to NOT approve this binding proposal for the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Proposal. The only one of its alternatives that is viable is that of “NO ACTION!” Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-167 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 16 Robert and Mary Becker (letter 2) 1. See the response to Comment 1 in DEIS Letter 12. 2. See the response to Comment 2 in DEIS Letter 12. 3. See the response to Comment 3 in DEIS Letter 12. 4. See the response to Comment 4 in DEIS Letter 12. 5. See the response to Comment 5 in DEIS Letter 12. 6. See the response to Comment 6 in DEIS Letter 12. 7. See the response to Comment 7 in DEIS Letter 12. 8. See the response to Comment 8 in DEIS Letter 12. 9. See the response to Comment 9 in DEIS Letter 12. 10. See the response to Comment 10 in DEIS Letter 12. 11. See the response to Comment 11 in DEIS Letter 12. 12. See the response to Comment 12 in DEIS Letter 12. 13. See the response to Comment 13 in DEIS Letter 12. 14. See the response to Comment 14 in DEIS Letter 12. 15. See the response to Comment 15 in DEIS Letter 12. 16. See the response to Comment 16 in DEIS Letter 12. 17. See the response to Comment 17 in DEIS Letter 12. 18. See the response to Comment 18 in DEIS Letter 12. 19. See the response to Comment 19 in DEIS Letter 12. 20. See the response to Comment 20 in DEIS Letter 12. 21. See the response to Comment 21 in DEIS Letter 12. 22. See the response to Comment 22 in DEIS Letter 12. 23. See the response to Comment 23 in DEIS Letter 12. 24. See the response to Comment 24 in DEIS Letter 12. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-168 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 25. See the response to Comment 25 in DEIS Letter 12. 26. See the response to Comment 26 in DEIS Letter 12. 27. See the response to Comment 27 in DEIS Letter 12. 28. See the response to Comment 28 in DEIS Letter 12. 29. See the response to Comment 29 in DEIS Letter 12. 30. See the response to Comment 30 in DEIS Letter 12. 31. See the response to Comment 31 in DEIS Letter 12. 32. See the response to Comment 32 in DEIS Letter 12. 33. See the response to Comment 33 in DEIS Letter 12. 34. See the response to Comment 34 in DEIS Letter 12. 35. See the response to Comment 35 in DEIS Letter 12. 36. See the response to Comment 36 in DEIS Letter 12. 37. See the response to Comment 37 in DEIS Letter 12. 38. See the response to Comment 38 in DEIS Letter 12. 39. See the response to Comment 39 in DEIS Letter 12. 40. See the response to Comment 40 in DEIS Letter 12. 41. See the response to Comment 41 in DEIS Letter 12. 42. See the response to Comment 42 in DEIS Letter 12. 43. See the response to Comment 43 in DEIS Letter 12. 44. See the response to Comment 44 in DEIS Letter 12. 45. See the response to Comment 45 in DEIS Letter 12. 46. See the response to Comment 46 in DEIS Letter 12. 47. See the response to Comment 47 in DEIS Letter 12. 48. See the response to Comment 48 in DEIS Letter 12. 49. See the response to Comment 49 in DEIS Letter 12. 50. See the response to Comment 50 in DEIS Letter 12. From: abelenky17@gmail.com [mailto:abelenky17@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Aaron Belenky Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 1:34 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Quendall Terminals DEIS Public Comment I have reviewed the Quendall Terminals DEIS, and which to issue a Written public comment in response to the submitted plan. I am opposed to the DEIS submitted, and recommend that the No Action Alternative be adopted. I am specifically opposed to adopting Alternative 2 as a "compromise" Alternative 2 is similar in development scope (708 vs. 800 residential units, same sq. ft. of retail and restaurants space), with substantially less parking space (1,364 vs. 2,171 spaces). Alternative 2 is essentially all of the same development with none of the parking resources, making it even worse that Alternative 1. The impact statement make many claims that do not withstand critical evaluation. An assessment of some of the issues follows: Alternative 2 is NOT an alternative. An alternative is required for compliance with SEPA. The Alternative 2, as described in pages 1-3 to 1-14, is describes as "Same as Alternative 1" in 23 boxes. It is described as "Similar to Alternative 1" in 17 boxes. When described as different from Alternative 1, the numbers cited, for residential units, building heights, square footages, etc, are more than 80% of the corresponding numbers in Alternative 1. In about 40 of 45 boxes, Alternative 2 is the same or similar to Alternative 1. In the remaining 5 boxes, Alternative 2 is not substantially different from Alternative 1, and is roughly 80% similar. The area is not "Urban". The plan is not similar to the surrounding area. The plan states that "the proposed development would represent a continuation of urban development along the Lake Washington Shoreline. The proposed building height and bulk would be generally similar to surrounding uses." It also reads, "Proposed building would generally be similar to the surrounding commercial and planned hotel buildings to the north and east". I do not see urban development along the Lake Washington Shoreline. To south along the shoreline is predominately single family homes, 3 stories and under, followed by Gene Coulon Park. It is only at the Bristol Apartments complex, approximately 2.5 miles away, that anything remotely similar to the planned project is found on a much smaller scale. To the north, the VMAC (known as the Seahawks Facility) is unique and a standout among an otherwise suburban area dominated by single family homes and a few small apartment buildings. As evidence of similarity to surrounding commercial uses, the DEIS cites an project for a hotel that hasn't even started yet. It is an incredible feat of circular reasoning to cite similarities to a non-existent building as the basis for similarity. The plan is significantly different from the VMAC / Seahawks Facility. The DEIS repeatedly cites the VMAC Seahawks facilities height, bulk and density as a basis for describing the proposed plan as similar to surrounding development. The plan ignores several key factors that make the VMAC completely unique and inappropriate as a basis for comparison. The VMAC use is primarily seasonal. The Quendall Terminals development would be in full use year round. The VMAC is a private business with a staff of only a few hundred. The Quendall Terminals Development will attract both permanent residents and short term customers/shoppers, estimated at 9,000 vehicle trips daily. The VMAC is mostly empty. By the nature of its use, and having 3 football fields on site, the VMAC may be physically large, but it has minimal impact on traffic and density. The Quendall Terminals Development sets out to be high-density development. The VMAC has 275 parking spaces, and much of the transportation for large events is done by charter bus. The Quendall Terminals Development proposes over 2,000 parking spaces, and makes no provision for transit improvements, such as bus stops or a potential light-rail station. The possibility of a Bus Rapid Transit stop is recognized in "Other Possible Mitigation Measures", but not provided for by any other aspect of the proposal. Summary The application, as described in the DEIS is not appropriate for this area. It does not present an appropriate alternative plan for comparison, mis-characterizes the area and the impact this development will have on the area, and uses inappropriate comparisons to imaginary buildings to justify the scope of the project. The DEIS should be rejected and development should not move forward until the plan is revised, re-written, and re-evaluated. Sincerely, Aaron Belenky 1800 NE 40th St. Unit H-4 Renton, WA 98056 abelenky@alum.mit.edu 206-235-2651 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-171 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 17 Aaron Belenky 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. Your comment is noted for the record. DEIS Alternative 2 also does not include any office space as part of the development (compared to approximately 245,000 square feet of office space under DEIS Alternative 1). Please note that the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum further reduces the proposed redevelopment density, relative to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. 3. The proposed development for DEIS Alternative 2 included less residential space, no office space, a greater amount of open space, and fewer parking stalls. The table referenced in this comment (DEIS Table 1-1) is specifically a summary of potential impacts under the DEIS Alternatives and indicates that impacts under DEIS Alternative 2 would be similar to or less than those analyzed in DEIS Alternative 1. Also see the response to Comment 2 in this letter. 4. As discussed in FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24), it is acknowledged that in general, the proposed development would be greater in scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. Proposed individual buildings on the Quendall Terminals site would be greater in height and bulk than adjacent single-family residential buildings (i.e., in the Barbee Mill residential development to the south). However, the proposed buildings would generally be similar in height and bulk to the existing buildings in the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility to the north, proposed Hawk’s Landing development to the east, and commercial and multifamily residential areas further to the east, beyond I-405. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes modifications to enhance the compatibility of proposed redevelopment with surrounding single-family residential uses (i.e., reduction of overall development level, modulation of building heights across the site, modifications in building materials, and addition of landscaping). See FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 5. Your comment is noted for the record. While the Hawk’s Landing project has not been developed to date, the project received master plan and site plan approval from the City. An extension request was submitted for the Hawk’s Landing master plan and approved by the City of Renton. The master plan is valid until September 10, 2015. No building/construction permits have been applied for the project at this time. 6. Your comment is noted for the record. 7. Your comment is noted for the record. Transportation impacts were analyzed in the DEIS (for DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2) and in the EIS Addendum (for the Preferred Alternative). Mitigation measures have been identified to address the potential transportation impacts associated with proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site (including impacts associated with project trip generation). See FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-172 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 8. The adjacent Seahawks Training Facility development experiences fluctuations in trip generation throughout the year. As part of the DEIS transportation analysis, however, the latest traffic counts reflect peak usage of the Seahawks Training Facility during Seahawks Training Camp. As such, the impacts of the Quendall Terminals Project and associated mitigation measures account for the worst-case condition. 9. As noted in the EIS Addendum, Section 4.8 Transportation, and Appendix E, proposed parking supply under the Preferred Alternative would meet minimum off-street requirements per City code, and the parking demand analysis using standard transportation engineering methods. Shared parking agreements between on-site uses and implementation of transportation demand management (TDM) measures (for proposed commercial and residential uses) could reduce parking demand during peak periods, thereby reducing the necessary parking supply and demand. Local and regional transit agencies have no plans (within the transportation study horizon year of 2015 in the DEIS and EIS Addendum and within the horizon year of 2017 in this FEIS) to provide transit service along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor in the site vicinity. A project mitigation has been identified indicating that site amenities and access would be provided to future transit zones on Lake Washington Boulevard and at the I-405/NE 44th Street interchange to encourage and accommodate public transportation access in the future, including a possible Bus Rapid Transit on I-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT with a flyer stop at the I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange (see Transportation mitigation measure H9 in FEIS Chapter 1). There are many neighborhoods and developments within Renton and throughout the Puget Sound region that are not directly served by transit. 10. Your comment is noted for the record. February 1, 2011 7244 East Mercer Way Mercer Island Washington 98040 City of Renton Planning Department Attn: Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Sixth Floor Renton Washington 98055 Vanessa Dolbee, I am writing to you regarding the Quendall Terminals project number LUA09‐151, EIS, ECF, BSO, SA‐M, Sm. I am very much against the current proposed project redevelopment as written. This small strip of land is unique because it is one of the very few parcels of land along Lake Washington that is still undeveloped. However the area is big enough to warrant your protection because it is in constant use by wildlife. It is the home to many eagles, birds, otters, some endangered Western Pond and other kinds of turtles and other small animals. This home for the wildlife as a place live right on the shores of the lake cannot be replaced. To spend Federal tax funds and State Tax funds to “cleanup” the site for the benefit of developers and then to turn around and allow the destruction of the wildlife habitat and pollute the same land with greatly increased noise and light on a grand scale is simply an ecological disaster. Please think about this. A similar sized tract of land just to the south of this project has been very recently developed. It was split into about 100 residential properties according to the City of Renton map. The City of Renton is currently considering a proposal by developers that would permit 800 residential units, allow for 245,000 square feet of office space, 21,600 square feet of retail and 9000 square feet of restaurant space on approximately the same sized parcel of land. How can this be reasonable? This is not to mention additional proposals for a high story “Seahawks Hotel “in that same area. The proposal calls for construction of buildings 90 feet tall and structures that are comparable in size to the huge Seahawks training facility. The property under discussion has for many years been a small woodland oasis area located in a quiet neighborhood. The adjacent properties in that general area are two and three story homes along the lake, which are subject to very restrictive provisions of the Shoreline Management Act. This land has never been used for large buildings, much less for huge structures. I do not understand how the City of Renton thinks they have the authority to make such a huge change in the low key small neighborhood characteristics of the shoreline. Zoning errors do not provide such authority nor make an excuse for making such a big mistake. I do not understand why the City of Renton does not require the developers to live by the same restrictions that are required of the average citizen living in the area. It seem like there is one standard for the average citizen and another one for the City and the Mega Rich. I do not understand why the City of Renton wants to support the building of gigantic structures for private parties rather than to develop this fragile area into public use with beautiful parks. The City of Renton has available land within its current boundaries that can be used for office space, commercial buildings etc. Such other areas would be far more suitable and appropriate sites for redevelopment. The City of Renton does not need to spoil the ambiance of the shores of Lake Washington. The proposed project is totally an inappropriate use of lake shore land. There is no critical need to use lake shore land to build office buildings. The citizens of the City of Renton however do have a critical need for additional waterfront parks. Citing a passage in the DEIS that states, “Residents of the proposed development would use nearby parks…including Gene Coulon.. and…Kennydale Beach, ..which are already at or exceeding capacity in the summer”. The people and the wildlife obviously need a new park. The scale of the proposed project would have a negative impact on I‐405 traffic. It would result in many additional cars being drawn to that area on the Interstate and adversely impact the nearby interchange. The headlights associated with the constant turning vehicles exiting and egressing on that interchange would shine over the lake. It would require huge additional expenses for highway redesign paid for by tax payers and still there would be an extraordinary and constant nightly light show. Traffic flows on I‐ 405 on the best of days would be severely impacted both for residents of the area and for the general public just passing through. To use superfunds to clean up a toxic site only to destroy it again, is an affront to the citizens of the State of Washington. To call the Quendall area a Superfund Site and then not follow Superfund public notice rules to the surrounding communities is deceptive. According to the EPA publication OSWER 9355.7‐06P Reuse Assessment Guide on page 6, the “Community” is supposed to be asked things like, “What are the community’s expectations for reuse of the site”. In a similar vein the community is supposed to be asked, “What would community members like to see”? They are also supposed to be asked, “What would the community members oppose”? I do not know of any such questions being requested from the public in Renton or the required surrounding communities such as Mercer Island. The proposed project is not in keeping with the Federal Environmental Protection Act, the enactment of Superfunds for the cleanup of toxic waste sites, nor the Shoreline Management Act etc. Required citizen input from affected nearby communities was never requested. The public never had the required chance to publicly discuss alternative uses of the land after the site was cleaned up. I do not understand why the City of Renton terms this a “cleanup” anyway as the current DEIS proposal essentially just calls for burying the hazardous land under a few feet of dirt. Seattle tried using this same idea many years ago on a similar 20 acre site known as Gas Works Park. That plan has utterly failed and the City of Seattle for public health reasons will not permit anyone to build on that land. The Quendall proposal however would permit building apartments and offices for 800 plus people, using the same failed cleanup methods Seattle used for Gas Works Park. Trying to cover up polluted land with a few feet of dirt is a bad idea. The City of Seattle has had to repeatedly spend a large amount of money to perform more tests because they did not perform a real cleanup. According to published articles the City of Seattle continues to find toxic pollution because the toxic soil was not removed. Visitors at Gas Works Park cannot wade into the water or go fishing there etc. If the dirt at the Quendall project is not removed the existing hazardous contaminates will continue to leach via groundwater from the soil into the lake. The DEIS states that protection for the potential residents from the remaining non‐removed hazardous material, is to be provided by a two story garage placed under the buildings. That is neither sufficient nor will provide acceptable protection. The DEIS states on page 2‐6, that the EPA is the responsible entity for all cleanup/remediation plans and actions. The City of Renton refers to the Quendall site as having state wide impact yet does not require statewide public input. The measure of the adequacy of the cleanup of the Quendall site will actually remain the responsibility of the City of Renton. The general public in the State of Washington will hold the City of Renton responsible if the City of Renton accepts the current proposals. The city will be held liable for insuring that the public health and welfare is not jeopardized in the future. The facts are that the City of Renton is the responsible party for considering proposals for the cleanup efforts. It will be the City of Renton’s Hearing Examiner that finally accepts or rejects the proposal. It is the City of Renton that has the large financial interest in the project because of the possibility of increasing their tax base and stands to gain additional annual taxes. The City or Renton, despite the DEIS statement to the contrary, will be responsible for their actions not just the EPA or State of Washington. If the EPA and or the State of Washington State Department of Ecology also fail in this regard the taxpayers will become liable. The huge risks to all parties involved in this proposal are simply not worth taking. According to the 1993 State of Washington Department of Ecology Agreed Order number DE 92TC‐N335 The Department of Ecology has the right to modify or withdraw any provisions of this order should public comment disclose facts and considerations which indicate to Ecology that the Order is inadequate or improper in any respect. I hope that the Department of Ecology can and will now exercise that right. I do not know of any public comment that was ever requested or obtained at the time the Agreed Order was created in 1993. Whatever public input that may have been obtained was certainly insufficient and is dated now. On page six, item number 21 of the Agreed Order it says that there was, “a large spill … of creosote…in the 1930’s … water contaminates coated the lake bottom”. “The EPA study revealed high levels of PAH contamination in the offshore sediments”. According to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources publication on Creosote, “High PAHs…can cause cancer, mutation or malformation of embryo/fetus in fish, birds, amphibians and mammals. In face of this obvious danger, I do not see where the scope of actual cleaning of “the lake bottom as described in the Agreed Order ” has been adequately assessed or addressed in the DEIS. There certainly was inadequate discussion about it. The Agreed Order happened nearly 18 years ago and until recently it has apparently has not been used. This certainly suggests that the Agreed Order is too old, outdated and in need of material revision. It needs new public input. Technology and the methods of perform testing of polluted sites certainly have changed in 18 years. This certainly suggests that new tests using new technology now need to be performed to properly understand the scope of the hazards so it can be properly acted upon. The City of Renton should also revise the old outdated zoning of the Quendall area because the uses for the area have substantially changed since the area was last rezoned many years ago. To propose to build such huge structures right on the shores of Lake Washington makes a mockery of the political parties claims of enforcing environmental concerns. Effective environmental political processes are only those that really protect the environment, the impacted citizens and the wildlife. I would propose that studies of the current amount of light and noise emitting from the property as it is today be publicly disclosed. New and fairly taken tests should be used as the maximum amount of light and noise that would be permitted. These tests results should be made and accepted only after first acting to reduce the current amount of light pollution emitting from the Seahawks stadium and the unnecessary parking lighting and City of Renton utilities. It is unfair to include in the tests and test results the current amount of light pollution caused by the Seahawks and the City of Renton. Using test results taken from an already polluted environment would give false readings of what should be allowable. I certainly would require that the City of Renton pledge that they will never allow any increase in the current amount of light and noise that exists there today. I would also propose that the City of Renton suspend any further review of the Quendall proposal until the general public has a chance to provide input for the use of the site as a public park and wildlife habitat. Hopefully this may result in the creation of a wildlife friendly park where the citizens of the area can have a place can quietly commune with nature in a meaningful wetland area that will provide protection for the birds, otters and turtles. I believe that studies should be required on the impact the proposed development will have on the rare turtles that inhabit the area. The public who will be paying for the huge expense of cleanup and the cost of maintaining it should be the ones who enjoy it. The public should not be locked out. Erecting the Seahawks training facility has been an ecological disaster and one that should not be repeated. In past years, thousands of people attended and protested at meetings held at a Renton school. The public protested allowing the building of the Seahawks training facility alleging similar complaints as I have written about today. The public was concerned that once mega buildings were allowed along the shore of the lake that soon there would be attempts to build more of them. Now their fears may be coming true. It is time to stop building such structures on the shores of the lake. On a personal note, we made repeated telephone calls to the City of Renton to turn out the lights from the Seahawks construction project at night because it often flooded the inside of our home with light. It ruins the quiet nighttime enjoyment of our home. The City of Renton made a few attempts to dim the lights but within a few days it was right back up again. The glare of the lights has not stopped. It is still that way today. The Seahawks do not practice in the middle of the night. Yet they still light up the main and other buildings and waste electrical power nearly all year round. Protests about the light pollution to the Seahawks bring no relief. To characterize the light pollution that would occur as stated in the DEIS as “no significant light… would be anticipated “is grossly and erroneously stated. On many nights the glare of the lights extrude from the giant windows from the top of mega story training facility The light reflects on the water in broad beams all the way across the lake and into our yard and our home. Guests to our home often comment about it. We certainly do not want any more of the same light pollution. We have repeatedly complained to the City of Renton to discuss the current unnecessary utility and parking lights beaming across the lake from the Renton shore all to no avail. The City of Renton has not tried to mitigate the light pollution by diverting the offending lights or try to reduce the glare. Allowing this project to proceed as proposed will likely turn night into day and will have a terrible impact on my family. The value of Mercer Island property will certainly go down for my home and many others and so will Mercer Island’s tax base and their tax revenues. I believe that the City of Renton will become in violation of their own city policies for shoreline management if they accept the Quendall project proposal. According to their own policies they are supposed to consider commercial, residential and recreational uses for land under development. The City or Renton has recently allowed the two adjacent similar parcels of land right on the shores of Lake Washington to be fully used for commercial and residential purposes. Therefore to be in compliance with their own policies the third and last parcel of land should be used for recreational purposes. This last parcel of forest and wilderness shoreline area should not be buried under tons of concrete. I am concerned about the stated size of the project on 21.5 acres. I do think this is misleading. The actual buildable site would be far less after considering the actual shoreline and providing for required waterfront setbacks, parking, sidewalks, driveways, utilities etc. The population density per square foot would be far in excess of that which currently exists in the area. The website view makes the site look bigger than it really is. The area shown in light blue on your website presentation clearly covers an area about one third of which is over the water. There is not that much actual property to build on. In closing I believe this land is part of or near to an ancient land slide area and probably is part of the sensitive historic drowned forest area. I do not see any mention of the impact that the cleanup will have on it. After all, a man was stopped from underwater logging offshore of this same area just a few years ago because it was thought that preservation of the area was so important. So why is it not important now? Sincerely yours, Richard and Kathleen Bergquist Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-178 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 18 Richard and Kathleen Bergquist 1. As discussed in DEIS Section 3.2, Critical Areas, and Appendix E, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2009; also 2012) Priority Habitats and Species database shows no documented occurrences of priority species or habitats on the site or in the immediate vicinity, other than the presence of wetlands onsite along the lakeshore and listed fish species offsite within Lake Washington to the west and May Creek to the south. Bald eagles (a state sensitive species) may occasionally perch on the site, but the nearest known breeding site occurs on Mercer Island approximately one mile to the west, across Lake Washington. Although indicated as potentially occurring within King County by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012), the gray wolf has not been consistently or reliably documented within King County, particularly within the urbanized Puget Sound lowlands. Known or suspected occurrences of gray wolves in Washington center on more remote, forested habitats in the north Cascades, and none have been recorded anywhere near the project site. Ospreys are known to occur in the area, and may use nest platforms constructed along the south end of the Seahawks Training Facility to the north and near the mouth of May Creek on the old Barbee Mill property to the south. 2. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) authorized EPA to identify parties responsible for contamination of sites and compel the parties to clean up the sites. Where responsible parties cannot be found, EPA is authorized to clean up sites itself, using a special trust fund. In the case of the Quendall Terminals site, the property owners, Altino Properties and J.H. Baxter and Company, are the parties responsible for cleanup of the site and federal or state funding is not being used to clean up the contamination on the site. 3. As discussed in FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topics Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24), it is acknowledged that in general, the proposed development would be greater in scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. Proposed individual buildings on the Quendall Terminals site would be greater in height and bulk than adjacent single-family residential buildings (i.e., in the Barbee Mill residential development to the south). However, the proposed buildings would generally be similar or lower in height and bulk than the existing buildings in the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility to the north, proposed Hawk’s Landing development to the east, and commercial and multifamily residential areas further to the east, beyond I-405. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes modifications to enhance the compatibility of proposed redevelopment with surrounding single-family residential development (i.e., reduction of overall development level, modulation of building heights across the site, modifications in building materials, and addition of landscaping). See FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 4. It is acknowledged that proposed buildings would be greater in height and bulk than buildings in certain surrounding development in the site vicinity and generally similar to other buildings in the site vicinity (see the response to Comment 3 in this letter). Proposed development under the Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the City of Renton’s plans, policies, and regulations, particularly the site’s COR designation/classification, despite the project’s overall scale which is larger than certain Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-179 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which are taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family buildings. An alternative where the entire site is converted to a park was not evaluated in this EIS as it would not meet the applicant’s objectives for the site (see DEIS page 2-8 for the applicant’s objectives). Per SEPA 197-11-440(5)(b), “EIS alternatives must feasibly attain or approximate a proposal’s objective, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation.” Proposed development under the Preferred Alternative would include approximately 10.6 acres of “Natural Open Space Areas” and “Other Related Areas”. Of this total area, approximately 3.7 acres would be “Natural Public Open Space Areas” including a trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area (if authorized by EPA’s Record of Decision [ROD] or any Natural Resource Damages [NRD] settlement) and natural areas. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail would be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings, and could be combined with the fire access road. Approximately 6.9 acres of “Other Related Areas” would be provided, including landscaping and proposed sidewalks located throughout the site that would provide a connection between the trail and Lake Washington Boulevard and other areas beyond the site (including the May Creek Parkway and a future connection to Cougar Mountain). The “Other Related Areas” may or may not meet the City’s standards, regulations, and procedures for open space. Approximately 1.8 acres of indoor and/or outdoor area would be provided onsite for active recreation (i.e., Frisbee, swimming pools, tot lots, bocce ball courts, exercise rooms, active recreation in courtyards, etc.), as approved by the City’s responsible public official (see Parks and Recreation mitigation measure G2 and G8 in FEIS Chapter 1). 5. Future regional improvements planned by WSDOT along the I-405 corridor take into account this development and many other developments throughout the region. The potential impacts of the proposed Quendall Terminals Project on the local interchange, arterial system, and site access locations were evaluated and mitigation identified in accordance with SEPA requirements and local study requirements in the DEIS and EIS Addendum (see Appendices H and E to those documents, respectively, for further information). These analyses identified impacts that would be significant at the nearby NE 44th Street/I-405 Interchange and local arterial system without I-405 Improvements. Project mitigation measures have been identified along the arterial and intersections along Lake Washington Boulevard, at site access intersections, and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramps to address these impacts (see the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative in FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20). As indicated in the DEIS and EIS Addendum, there are no significant transportation-related impacts that cannot be mitigated. (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 6. EPA is required to consider whether the remediation alternative to be included in the ROD is protective of reasonably anticipated land uses following cleanup. EPA is planning to consider the land uses proposed under the Preferred Alternative during Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-180 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments consideration of the selected remediation alternative. EPA will be involving the public throughout the cleanup process prior to development of the ROD. For concerns about EPA community involvement, please contact EPA’s Community Involvement Coordinator at 206-553-6689. 7. Please see the response to Comment 6 in this letter. EPA will select the most appropriate remedy to address contamination in the lake sediments and upland area considering the nature and extent of contamination, site specific conditions, and comparative analysis of remedial technologies and alternatives. The remedy could include removal of contaminated soils in certain areas of the site. 8. Please see the response to Comment 2 in this letter. 9. Please see the response to Comment 6 in this letter. In 2006, EPA listed the Quendall Terminals site on the National Priority List. The 2003 Agreed Order with the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) was subsequently replaced with the 2006 Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent with EPA. 10. Your comment is noted for the record. Under the Preferred Alternative, buildings would be setback a minimum of 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of Lake Washington, in response to comments from EPA on the Quendall Terminals DEIS, and in compliance with the City of Renton’s current Shoreline Master Program (2011). Also, see the response to Comment 3 in this letter. Proposed development under the Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the City of Renton’s plans, policies, and regulations, particularly the site’s COR designation/classification, despite the project’s overall scale which is larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which are taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family buildings. With implementation of the identified project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be expected. The Preferred Alternative also includes a minimum 100-foot setback from the shoreline. The shoreline area would accommodate future wetlands, as well as buffers and setbacks. Final, detailed plans for the re-establishment of wetlands and their buffers onsite will be in accordance with EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prior to redevelopment. EPA will be responsible for review and approval of the proposed wetland replacement plan for the site through a separate process associated with site cleanup and remediation. 11. The DEIS and EIS Addendum included analyses of potential light and glare impacts with proposed redevelopment (see DEIS Section 3.7, Aesthetics/Views, and EIS Addendum Section 4.6, Aesthetics/Views). Project mitigation measures have been identified to mitigate potential light and glare impacts on surrounding uses and the shoreline of Lake Washington (see Aesthetics/Views mitigation measured F7 and F13 in FEIS Chapter 1). Noise was not included as an element for analysis in the EIS, because construction and operation of the proposed redevelopment is not anticipated to result in significant noise impacts (i.e., on surrounding uses) with adherence to the City’s noise regulations. A discussion of Construction Impacts is contained in FEIS Chapter 2 – page 2-34. New Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-181 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments project mitigation measures have been added to address potential construction impacts, including noise (see mitigation measures J3 and J4 in FEIS Chapter 1). 12. Please see the response to Comment 4 in this letter. Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS, further SEPA review of the project was placed on hold subject to review and feedback from EPA on the environmental baseline assumptions. EPA indicated that the environmental baseline (post-remediation conditions) represented in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are reasonable given the expected general outcome of the ROD, if an increased 100-foot shoreline setback is assumed. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes the shoreline setback recommended by EPA. 13. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 3 in this letter for details on the proposed height, bulk, and scale of the project and its compatibility with surrounding development. 14. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 11 in this letter for details on light and glare. 15. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 11 in this letter for details on light and glare. 16. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 11 of in this letter for details on light and glare. 17. As described in the 2011 City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (SMP), the Quendall Terminals site is located within the Shoreline High-Intensity Overlay District. This district is intended to provide opportunities for large-scale office and commercial employment centers, as well as multifamily residential use and public services. The district provides opportunities for water-dependent and water-oriented uses while protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions that have been previously degraded. Development may also provide for public use and/or community use, especially access to and along the water’s edge. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum would be consistent with these objectives as it would provide multifamily residential and commercial uses, as well as public access (a trail) along the water’s edge (if authorized by EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement; if EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail would be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings, and could be combined with the fire access road), and would protect existing ecological functions in the shoreline area. The 100-foot shoreline setback under the Preferred Alternative would also be consistent with the City’s current SMP. 18. The total site area (21.5 acres) includes required setbacks for shoreline and critical area buffers. A summary of the site features and assumed redevelopment is included in EIS Addendum Table 2-1, including proposed redevelopment, open space, shoreline setbacks, and minimum shoreline setback area. 19. Your comment is noted for the record. The land area listed on the City of Renton mapping system is approximately 31 acres. This area has been reduced due to the amount of land located “in the lake” and other factors such as roadway construction. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-182 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments Therefore, the approximately 21.5 acres is an adjustment for the project density information. 20. In response to comments on the DEIS, a cultural resources assessment was conducted as part of the EIS Addendum (see EIS Addendum Section 3.5 and 4.9, and Appendix F). The analysis in the EIS Addendum identified potential cultural resource impacts and associated mitigation measures, including the development and implementation of a monitoring plan and inadvertent discovery plan (see FEIS Chapter 1 - pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including cultural resource-related mitigation measures). From:borgy1943@comcast.net [mailto:borgy1943@comcast.net] Sent:Thursday, January 06, 2011 9:14 AM To:Vanessa Dolbee Cc:Susan Siegmund; Linda Scarvie Subject:Quendall Terminals Attached are comments on the Quendall Terminals Development EIS plan. In short, we support a much lower density approach, nothing like either of the proposed plans. I might add, although not likely part of the EIS process, it is disturbing as a tax payer that this property is almost tax free at $1000 per year since 1997 when taxes in 1997 and earlier were over $1.5mm per year. I am sure that this is due to the contamination issue. I also know from my own experience in industry for similar facilities for Weyerhaeuser company that these things can be resolved in much much less time than this has taken. This kind of contamination has years and years of precedence solutions which have been developed and evaluated nationally in hundreds of cases. One was our own at Weyerhaeuser in Everett, WA for an almost identical case on the water front and all. There should be no big mystery to resolving a remediation solution. I know it sounds like it is resolved now for Quendall and I trust the remediation part of the study is over!! The time involved has delayed getting back to a solid tax base for this property to share our tax burden as area residents. I encourage you to help potential investors for this property to come up with solutions which comply with all the input you are getting ASAP so they can develop acceptable plans for the property. I believe there are good solutions which can easily accomplish this and would gain community support. Thank you for the chance to provide input. Larry R. Borgeson 1013 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 360-918-3371 1 2 3 DEIS Letter 19 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-184 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 19 Larry Borgenson (email) 1. Your comment is noted for the record. A Preferred Alternative was analyzed in the EIS Addendum that further reduces redevelopment density relative to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. 2. Your comment is noted for the record. Site cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process. The impact analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum solely addressed potential impacts with post-cleanup redevelopment of the site. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Environmental Health – page 2-19) for details on cleanup and remediation of the site. 3. Your comment is noted for the record. To: Vanessa Dolbee Sr Planner Dept of Community & Economic Development Planning Division I (Larry Borgeson) attended the public hearing on 1/4/2011 but did not speak. I did agree with almost all other input you received however. I have since discussed this with my wife Linda and we have the additional thoughts as follows: 1. We are curious about the superfund site designation. I was involved in a superfund project in the Hylebos waterway about 8 yrs ago. People who both caused the issues, or gained advantage of the project, had to pay for the costs which provided the tax payers at least substantial payback. I would ask in this case how the tax payers are reimbursed for the clean up effort and how much the developer is contributing to this effort since he is gaining some prime real estate unavailable almost anywhere on the lake. He should be paying at least a prime property price. This aspect should be addressed in the EIS. Financial impact on the tax payers should be one of the environmental impacts. 2. Also, other financial impacts that must be considered include: a. Impact on surrounding real estate values and pricing. - The proposals affect surrounding homeowner investments by mixing in high density smaller housing which changes the nature and associated value of the surrounding neighborhoods. b. The nature of this project as presented would include a serious impact on the City and County tax base as well since taxes are based on values. - Impacts due to such things as traffic impacts, sewer system impacts, area aesthetics and views, 1 2 DEIS Letter 20 etc. will stretch for at least a mile in all directions. All of Ripely lane, all of Barbee Mill and a major portion of Kennydale as a minimum will be affected. > Traffic issues all the way to Exit 5 must be evaluated. > Apartment and Condo values and high vacancy issues will be worsened all the way from I-90 to downtown Renton. 3. Other impacts of the high density housing proposed: a. Due to the fact that there is a very large vacancy issue in apartment and condo style housing as proposed in the area, this project will quickly turn a sour market to a very very poor market rendering not only the Quendall project a slum area but other similar properties in the area as well. - This would result in high vacancy incentives to fill the units at any cost, much of which may be section 8 and other affordable housing situations. - Crime and other slum type impacts would result b. Impact on schools and bussing must be considered c. Recreation facilities for children and adults must be considered. Coulon Park is already out of parking capacity and this would totally make it inaccessible for area residents. d. Impact on sewer systems must be addressed e. Impact on fire protection must be addressed f. Impact on police protection must be addressed g. Noise due to density and high buildings will increase and change the character of our neighborhood h. Added load on hospital and medical services in the area must be considered i. Emergency services issues with congestion will affect our services for emergency medical, etc. 2 cont. 3 4 J. The entire character of the area will be changed from what we know today and have invested in. k. Access and egress from our own homes will be greatly affected l. Proposed transportation systems to be added at some point is totally out of character with the area and will further restrict access to our homes. m. Area lighting will render city like atmosphere for those of us closer to the development n. Have any shadow studies been done? - we know there will be some impact here for those close areas o. Impact on all other public services must be addressed p. In short, the density proposed is not only disturbing - it is shocking !! 4. I am concerned that the adequacy of communication of this project for the public hearing and solicitation for input may have been lacking possibly due to a lack of recognition of the far reaching impacts of this project. a. Since no one was represented from Ripely Lane and no one from the other side of Hwy. 405 and only a few people from Kennydale, I would assume they were not aware of the nature of this development and what it may mean to them. b. What is the zoning for this area? We would suggest this must be first resolved before any development is allowed. Typically this would address many of these issues and would prevent such a development proposal in the first place. 5. What would happen if the Barbee residents elected to gate our community and block the north entrance to Barbee? Would this project eliminate that future option for Barbee 4 cont. 5 6 7 residents? Would it not block access to the south entrance proposed to the Quendall property? We should not be denied that future option due to any development on the Quendall property. 6. We think that doing something positive with the Quendall property is a good thing and better than leaving it as empty property but any project options should provide the following options and features: a. Option one: If the tax payers have paid for the superfund clean up, then perhaps we would favor making this a park area with nature features using existing wet lands, etc. b. Option two: If there is to be commercial development, then we would favor the following criteria: - Residential density and quality mirroring Barbee Mill. In fact, expanding Barbee Mill would be a desirable idea. - Some retail activity would be welcome including a nice waterfront restaurant, coffee house, specialty shops, deli store, and even some small professional offices. No big grocery stores, department stores, etc - that belongs in the Landing. - Some recreation area on site for residents, walkers or bikers only may be worked in if it can be coordinated with the wetlands challenges. (We believe this kind of development would be a positive, vs a negative, addition to our neighborhood and would address many if not most of the concerns raised with a high density development - and proof is in the positive sales experience in Barbee to date which has been much better than the general economy) 7. In looking over the proposal quickly, we see a few things 7 cont. 8 9 10 that are not properly evaluated: a. The up to 9000 trips per day identified are to result in 700 - 800 ft line ups on our one lane roads!! - Well if you took a good moving line at 5 sec per car, 9000 cars result in 12.5 hrs of traffic lines - half the a 24 hr clock !!! Traffic would be backed up to our doors !! Traffic would be forced south and impacts would result all the way to Exit 5 or even 4. There are already back ups exceeding 700 - 800 ft.!!! b. The wet lands buffers are being encroached on by buildings on the drawings. The explanation we heard that this can work due to averaging is nonsense. I have dealt with wet lands issues nationwide for 30 yrs and never have had that accommodation available. I am an engineer and worked as a design engineer and project manager for Weyerhaeuser for 38 yrs. I know that most of the EPA wet land rules are delegated to the states to manage and perhaps some inappropriate accommodations are being provided. I am sure if the EPA were brought in, this accommodation would disappear. c. I see very little if any run off mitigation from this project to the lake involved in the proposals. In effect nearly the entire site will be paved, and as such, run off must be properly treated before draining into the lake. We appreciate your very tough coordination role on this - it is really quite important to all of us. We thank you for your service to us. Larry & Linda Borgeson 1013 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA. 98056 Phone: 360-918-3371 10 cont. 11 12 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-190 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 20 Larry Borgenson (letter) 1. The cleanup and remediation of the Quendall Terminals site is the responsibility of the responsible parties (Altino Properties and J.H. Baxter and Company), who will be funding the cleanup and remediation process and are the current property owners. 2. Your comments are noted for the record. The DEIS and EIS Addendum include an analysis of land use (compatibility), aesthetics (views), and transportation, and identify potential impacts and associated mitigation measures. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas for details and updated analysis. While WAC 197-11-448(3), does not require an EIS to discuss economic factors and the fiscal aspects of a project, the residential units at the Sanctuary and Reserve are over 90 percent occupied, which is considered to be full occupancy. 3. Your comment is noted for the record. Market analyses prepared for the project by the applicant concluded that the proposed mixed-use development would be financially viable, and long-term vacancies would not be anticipated. 4. The DEIS and EIS Addendum included an analysis of potential land use (density and compatibility), aesthetics (views, visual character, light/glare, and shadows), and transportation impacts and identified associated project mitigations measures. See FEIS Chapter 1 - pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including the provision of approximately 1.8 acres of indoor and/or outdoor area onsite for active recreation (i.e., Frisbee, swimming pools, tot lots, bocce ball courts, exercise rooms, active recreation courtyards, etc.), to be approved by the City’s responsible public official. As part of the EIS process, public scoping was held in 2010 (including a public scoping meeting on April 27, 2010) to help identify the environmental elements that would be analyzed in the EIS. Based on the scoping process, the City of Renton identified: earth, critical areas, environmental health, energy/greenhouse gas emissions, land and shoreline use, relationship to plans and policies, aesthetics/views, parks and recreation, and transportation as the elements to be analyzed. Public services (police, fire, and emergency services, schools), utilities, and noise were not identified as elements to be analyzed in the EIS as the proposed project was not expected to result in significant impacts on these elements. Construction and operation of the proposed redevelopment is not anticipated to result in significant noise impacts (i.e., on surrounding uses) with adherence to the City’s noise regulations. A discussion of Construction Impacts is contained in FEIS Chapter 2 – page 2-34. New mitigation measures have been added to the project to address potential construction impacts, including noise (see Construction Impacts mitigation measures J3 and J4 in FEIS Chapter 1). 5. The DEIS and EIS Addendum were distributed to Federal, State, and Local agencies, as well as parties of record. The documents were also distributed to the Renton Reporter, Seattle Times and Puget Sound Business Journal and were available for review at the Renton Main Library and Renton Highlands Library, and on the City’s website at http://www.rentonwa.gov/. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-191 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments An initial 30-day public comment period was provided for the DEIS; the public comment period was extended twice resulting in a 60-day public comment period. The public hearing for the DEIS was held on January 4, 2011, to allow for additional public comment. While not required, a 30-day public comment period was provided for the EIS Addendum. 6. The land use designation and zoning classification of the Quendall Terminals site is Commercial/Office/Residential (COR). The COR designation is intended to provide opportunities for large-scale office, commercial, retail, and multifamily projects developed through a master plan and site plan process. The proposed development under the Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the City of Renton’s plans, policies, and regulations, particularly the site’s COR designation/classification, despite the project’s overall scale which is larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which are taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family buildings. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details on the COR land use designation and zoning classification of the site. 7. The existing Barbee Mill development, and the alignment and configuration of N 43rd Street and its intersection with Lake Washington Boulevard, contemplated access to adjoining properties and future development. N 43rd Street is a public street, and public access to this roadway cannot be limited. The northernmost Barbee Mill access via N 43rd Street is planned as a secondary access to the proposed Quendall Terminals development; the primary access would occur via Ripley Lane. Subsequent to the issuance of the EIS Addendum, the City of Renton conducted a review in 2014 of cumulative transportation impacts along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor, including the Quendall Terminals Project and five other known pipeline projects (City of Renton Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton, October 2014). The review concluded that project-specific mitigation without I-405 improvements for Quendall Terminals would be adequate in the near-term and the relocation of the future signalized access into the site from Ripley Lane to N 43rd Street should be considered. As a result, mitigation measures for the Quendall Terminals Project have been modified in this FEIS to allow the City, WSDOT, the applicant and other adjacent property owners to further consider this potential relocation in future design of the interchange system (see FEIS Appendix C for details and FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures with the Preferred Alternative). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 8. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 1 in this letter. 9. Your comment is noted for the record. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-192 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 10. The 800-foot queues referenced in this comment would occur without implementation of project mitigation. With the implementation of the identified project-related traffic mitigation (see Chapter 1 of this FEIS for a list of the transportation-related mitigation measures), general traffic operations and vehicle queuing are anticipated to improve substantially and fall within acceptable traffic operational conditions (i.e., southbound queues for left turns on Ripley Lane would be reduced to approximately 200 feet and eastbound queues on Lake Washington Boulevard would be reduced to approximately 250 feet or less -- no adjacent intersections would be blocked; see FEIS Figure 2-1 for a depiction of the traffic movements at this intersection). See FEIS Table 2-3 for a summary of the vehicle queues at the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would also improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures. 11. Final, detailed plans for the retention/re-establishment of wetlands and their buffers will be developed in accordance with EPA’s Record of Decision (ROD) or any Natural Resource Damages (NRD) settlement as part of the remediation process, prior to redevelopment. 12. Section 3.1 of the DEIS provided an analysis of earth-related impacts from the proposal, including impacts to groundwater and associated mitigation measures. A permanent stormwater control system would be constructed for the project, in accordance with the applicable stormwater regulations. Sent:Wednesday, January 19, 2011 5:34 AM To:Vanessa Dolbee Subject:Re: Quendall Development Please find attached - Comments on the Quendall Development Date:January 18, 2011 To: City of Renton Planning Department Attn: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7314 vdolbee@rentonwa.gov From: Name: Linda Borgeson Address: 1013 N 42 nd Place Renton, WA 98056 Phone Number: 253-326-1113 Email Address: lscarvie@comcast.net Subject:Public Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal Draft EIS (LUA09-151) Following are our comments regarding the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal site as outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). As homeowners, tax payers and citizens of the City of Renton, we believe that the proposed and binding Quendall development 1 DEIS Letter 21 See Antezana (Form Letter) proposal has tremendous negative and adverse impacts to the environment, property, the neighborhood and our Barbee Mill community and should NOT be approved. 1) Size & Scale Impact a. Scale—The proposed scale, density and height of the buildings in both alternatives are completely out-of-scale, incompatible and inconsistent with all neighborhoods on the entire shoreline of Lake Washington. The typical height limit for buildings along the Lake is 35 ft. The proposed heights and densities exceed those of Downtown Kirkland, Carillon Point, Bellevue and Seattle’s Lake Washington facing neighborhoods. Furthermore, the proposed scale, density and height of the Quendall proposal are inconsistent and incompatible with adjacent neighborhoods, the East facing shoreline of Mercer Island. It will completely dwarf the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. b. The proposed buildings would be more than 40 ft taller than the height of the Barbee Mill homes. And they would be more than double the height of all nearby residences! The proposed buildings are nearly 90 ft in height although they are marked as 77 ft on the applicants elevation drawings, which is 3/4 the height of the Seahawks/VMAC Facility and the Boeing Airplane Factory. Again this is completely out-of-scale with the Barbee Mill neighborhood AND anything else along the Lake Washington shoreline. (DEIS 3.5-12) i. Figure 3.7-2 in the DEIS is an inaccurate and misleading rendering that attempts to conceal the height and visual impact of both proposal alternatives. c. The proposed architectural design resembles an industrial park and does not have the look or the feel of a residential neighborhood. It is certainly “not consistent with the existing urban character” (as claimed in DEIS 3.5-12) of any of the immediate and nearby residential neighborhoods, including Barbee Mill. The proposed scale, density and character would be an eyesore no matter what angle it is viewed from within the adjacent neighborhoods or from lakefront properties along Mercer. d. The proposed design looks more like the Landing, which is sandwiched in between a shopping center and the country’s second largest airplane factory and which is NOT located on the shores of one of the most beautiful lakes in the state and which is NOT located in the middle of an existing residential area. e. The Applicant claims that this area along the Lake Washington shoreline is currently a high-density urban environment. (DEIS 3.5-12) This statement is misleading and couldn’t be farther from the truth as all neighboring areas are completely residential (with the exception of the Seahawks facility.) f. The proposed designs and project scope, scale and density are inappropriate for the shoreline of Lake Washington and do not in any way take advantage of the Lake front location and view. The buildings face each other instead of the Lake. The primary lake view outlook and central lakefront architectural feature is a semi-circular parking lot. i. The Mayor stated in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Renton still has some amazing waterfront property on Lake Washington.”We couldn’t agree more. However, this proposal in no way takes advantage of or capitalizes on this amazing piece of waterfront 1 cont. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 property. In fact, the proposal looks like the City of Renton has taken a giant step backwards by proposing a self-facing vs. lake facing, residential complex, retail and office park with limited green space and tree canopy. This is not responsible growth. Nor is it responsible stewardship and development of the largest piece of remaining undeveloped land along the shoreline of beautiful Lake Washington. ii. The proposal calls for a straight, walled, 2-story parking garage, approximately 1000 ft in length, to traverse the entire Lake Washington frontage of the Quendall development with absolutely no undulation. There is nothing in the architectural design to break up the negative, visual impact of this two-story wall facing the Lake. This scale of this lake-facing 2-story garage wall is unheard of in residential zoning and lakefront zoning and does not fit the character nor complement the adjacent neighborhoods. g. The proposed development does NOT complement or add value to the existing neighborhoods especially neighboring Barbee Mill. Instead, this development would be tremendously destructive to the property value for the surrounding neighborhoods (including Barbee Mill, Kennydale, Newcastle and the East-facing side of Mercer Island) and detrimental to the quality of life for residents. 2) Density Impact a. This proposal repeatedly and misleadingly (DEIS 3.9-1) describes the Quendall development as “compatible with the existing neighborhoods.” This is preposterous and we strongly disagree. For example, Barbee Mill to the south has a planned density of 5 residential units per acre and contains no commercial (office or retail) space. The Quendall proposal is for 37 residential units per acre plus up to a ¼ million square feet of commercial space that would accommodate up to 2000 daily visitors. This is approximately 7 times the density of the local residential areas and is in no way “consistent with the existing urban character of the area.” In fact, the existing character of the local area can only accurately be described as residential. Both proposal alternatives, present tremendous compatibility impacts with the surrounding neighborhoods. b. Commercial/residential buildings in Renton and in the greater Eastside area, have tended to have a history of high-turnover, high-vacancy and have not proven to be particularly commercially viable. Our concern is that tenants of apartments and commercial space will have no vested interest in the neighborhood, the community or in the future vision for the city of Renton. And that such a development, could wind up sitting vacant for many years to come. 3) Traffic, Transportation & Parking Impact a. The traffic impact assessment in the DEIS is completely unrealistic. To begin with, the analysis in the DEIS does not take into account the traffic study and analysis for the adjacent Hawk’s Landing (Pan Abode) development, which estimated an additional 1400+ automotive trips a day flowing onto Lake Washington Blvd and adding to traffic congestion on the surrounding streets and I-405 exit 7 on-ramps and off-ramps. i. Before this or any other area development proposal is approved, a new, comprehensive traffic analysis should be done that 9 cont. 10 11 12 13 14 15 focuses on the combined traffic impact of: Quendall Terminal property, Hawk’s Landing/Pan Abode property, Seakhawks/VMAC Facility, Ripley Lane neighborhood, Barbee Mill, Kennydale neighborhood, I-405 congestion, commuters trying to bypass 405 congestion on Lake Washington Blvd and the City’s goal of providing direct access to Lake Washington from Park Dr & Sunset Blvd. This comprehensive traffic analysis should reflect all existing, proposed and potential developments and their collective impact on the immediate vicinity and existing neighborhoods. WSDOT analysis, future plans and funding for I-405 must be factored into the traffic analysis and any infrastructure planning. (Reference: Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA- 09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009) b. The proposal calls for an unacceptable increase in traffic with an estimated 2000 cars a day. Add to that, the estimated 1400 automotive trips a day from the proposed Hawks Landing development. The current infrastructure can in no way support the increases being proposed. There are no proposed plans to improve or widen the immediate roads or build the proper egress and ingress access roads to/from the proposed Quendall development. c. The proposal calls for N 43rd St to serve as the primary entrance to the Quendall property. This narrow, residential street is already the primary entrance for the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. This un-striped, 2-lane 135-ft long street, which has two stop signs and a railroad crossing, can in no way accommodate the proposed additional 2000 cars per day PLUS the cars of Barbee Mill residents. Furthermore, 43rd has already become plagued by a dangerous trends of drivers making hazardous u-turns and 3-point turns in the intersection of 43rd and Lake Washington Blvd. Given all this, it is shocking that the DEIS does NOT list NE 43rd St as a roadway condition concern. NE 43rd St is in no way sufficient to serve as the primary entrance for both Quendall and Barbee Mill it cannot safely and effectively accommodate the additional influx of 2000 cars per day. This proposal will result in intolerable traffic congestion, increased risk of accidents, noise pollution and egress problems for Barbee Mill Homeowners. i. 2000 additional cars/day will translate into 700 to 800 ft of traffic jams along Lake Washington Blvd, 43rd and Ripley Lane. The current infrastructure can in no way handle this increased volume. Lake Washington Blvd. is a narrow, 2-lane, scenic, curving, hilly, 25 mph road with bike lanes in both margins and many residential driveways. It is already extremely difficult to navigate Lake Washington Blvd given the present volume of traffic. Furthermore, it is already difficult with the present volume of traffic to enter or exit the Barbee Mill development at 43rd or 41st during the peak traffic hours and/or on sunny summer days from Lake Washington Blvd. Lake Washington Blvd does not have the capacity to handle the 2000/day proposed additional cars (3400+ if you factor in Hawk’s Landing). And, any serious infrastructure modifications to Lake Washington Blvd would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhoods, the environmentally sensitive May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline. 1. As a demonstration, one need to look no further than the congestion, parking and traffic nightmare that was created on 1/14/11 when hundreds of Seahawk Fans (including children and 15 cont. 16 17 18 19 pets) and their vehicles descended on the intersection of Ripley Lane and Lake Washington Blvd. Cars were parked all over 43rd, 44th, Lake Washington & Ripley Lane. It made it nearly impossible to enter/exit Barbee Mill on 43rd. Fans also jammed the 30th Bridge and surrounding Kennydale neighborhoods, which has been proposed as an alternate travel route for the Quendall Property. 2. As a demonstration, congestion is also extremely heavy when during the Seahawk Training Days in August, despite the fact that the Seahawks arrange for buses and parking in the Landing in their effort to mitigate what would be the adverse impact of an approximate 2000 cars per day from coming into and parking in the neighborhoods adjacent to Ripley Lane including Barbee Mill. 3. We do not understand why the proposal does not bring traffic directly into the center of the Quendall property via a new access road which would need to be built to cross Ripley Lane and that would be more capable of handling that volume of traffic. However, we are not sure that any development plan that calls for 2000 or more additional cars/day on area roads can be adequately addressed through existing, modified or new infrastructure. 4. The details of the traffic analysis for Lake Washington Blvd at 43rd have been left out of (Table 3.9-1) AND there is no mention in the proposal of improving 43rd. ii. We are concerned that frustrated motorists who are eager to avoid the traffic congestion on Lake Washington Blvd will either make dangerous u-turns and/or choose to use Barbee Mill as a major arterial north/south bypass route for Lake Washington Blvd. The streets within Barbee Mill can in no way accommodate this increased traffic volume. This bypass traffic would present a tremendous risk and inconvenience for Barbee Mill residents. It would hamper ability to safely enter and exit our own neighborhood and residences. The added traffic on Barbee Mill’s streets would create a public safety risks for residents as well as for area pedestrians, joggers, cyclists, children in strollers and pets that enjoy our streets. We are extremely concerned about the added danger of so many motorists trying to navigate the already hazardous blind curve at 42nd (just shortly after you turn into Barbee Mill from 43rd). The bypass traffic would also generate significant noise pollution. We believe that this proposal and its traffic volume will not only impact Barbee Mill homeowner and community safety but that it will adversely impact and reduce property values and quality of life for Barbee Mill homeowners. d. Traffic on I-405 at 44th and 30th is already one of the most frequently congested parts of the freeway in both the North and South lanes. Congestion occurs not only at peak traffic hours but throughout the majority of the day. The freeway, just as the neighboring roads, can in no way accommodate an additional influx of 2000 cars per day. Throughout the proposal, the applicant has stated that various traffic impacts could be mitigated through a coordinated effort with WSDOT. However, WSDOT went on record during the DEIS Scoping Summary 19 cont. 20 21 22 23 24 stating that “the potential I-405/NE 44 St interchange improvements project is not funded, and is not likely to be funded in the foreseeable future; the transportation analysis should not assume that this project is complete or will occur.”(Pg 5-EIS Scoping Summary) We believe that approving a major Quendall development plan without WSDOT commitment, funding, schedule and a plan in place to improve this interchange would have irreversible consequences and would cause a tremendous number of adverse impacts. i. There are scenarios in the proposal that suggest using the I-405 30th street onramp/offramp (exit 6) and then routing cars through the hilly, residential neighborhoods in Kennydale along 30th, 40th, Burnett and Park. This is not a realistic alternative and is equally as dangerous as cars choosing to use Barbee Mill as a shortcut. And it could encourage drivers travelling northbound and southbound on Lake Washington Blvd to take a shortcut through Barbee Mill. e. Transportation—The proposal does not include any plans to develop, improve or encourage public transit in the vicinity. This means that there would be no alternative form of transportation for the estimated 2000+ daily visitors and tenants. It is not an environmentally responsible transportation design solution to place 2000 additional cars onto neighborhood streets and the lakefront in this residential community without providing realistic transportation alternatives. i. In the Mayor’s 2010 State of the City Address, he declared “I believe that it is vital that we have the right infrastructure in place now to serve the needs of our future. We will continue to work with the state and regional transportation organizations to make critical investments to create an affective transportation system that allows goods and people to move efficiently.”The Quendall proposal does not provide for any investments to create an affective transportation solution in the area NOR does it put the right infrastructure in place to serve the needs of the immediate area and alleviate traffic and noise and air pollution impacts and public safety risks. f. Parking—In the Proposal Alternative 2, there are surface level parking lots for 220 cars up placed right up against the entire north property line for Barbee Mill. This is in no way consistent with land use compatibility in the neighborhood and will adversely impact property values and quality of life. Nor is Proposal Alternative 1, which calls for a 6-story building to be placed right up against the north fence of Barbee Mill. We believe that it is not an acceptable plan to place parking lots, tall buildings and/or delivery entrances right up against the north Barbee Mill fence. i. We are concerned that if fees are charged for parking in the Quendall development, that visitors and tenants will seek out free parking in the adjacent neighborhood streets especially at Barbee Mill— which already suffers from insufficient street parking for residents and guests. 4) Public Safety Impact a. Cyclist Safety/Pedestrian/Runners Safety—Lake Washington Blvd was never meant to be a major thoroughfare. It is a hilly, scenic route through residential neighborhoods. It has no sidewalks and is very poorly lit at night. In fact, it is 24 cont. 25 26 27 28 29 30 already quite dangerous on winter nights to turn into the Barbee Mill development at either 43rd or 44th St as there are no streetlights at either intersection. Lake Washington Blvd (in addition to Barbee Mill streets) is currently used not only by vehicles but also by pedestrians walking their pets and children, joggers and bicyclists. Given that there are no sidewalks and poor lighting along the road, such an increase in cars would not only cause traffic gridlock and backups but would also present a tremendous safety hazard to all using the bike lanes and shoulders for purposes other than driving. i. As a demonstration, a Barbee Mill resident counted more than 140 cyclists using Lake Washington Blvd and crossing 43rd St in a 90-minute period on a recent summer Saturday morning. b. We are concerned that the proposed public access trail and above ground parking lots located right against Barbee Mill North fence would invite evening transient traffic and loitering that could lead to crime. This fence backs up against an existing quiet residential neighborhood. This would not only adversely impact quality of life for Barbee Mill residents but also reduce property values. c. We are concerned that the proposed traffic volume and insufficient infrastructure, would affect the ability of emergency vehicles and first responders to quickly access the Barbee Mill community (and Ripley Lane neighborhood) in the event of an emergency. This puts the lives and health of residents at risk. d. We are concerned that a newly accessible open public space, trails, and parking lots may become an attractive target to a criminal element and would bring an increase risk of crime, vandalism, gang activity, graffiti, noise, and other negative and unwanted activity that would put neighborhood homeowners’ safety and security at risk. 5) Light, Glare & Noise Impact a. We have tremendous concern over the amount light and glare that would be emitted from the proposed high-density residential buildings (proposed to be as high as 90ft) and the evening and night-time restaurant patrons and shoppers in the retail development. We also are concerned about the noise pollution that would come from delivery trucks, giant HVAC units, 2000+ cars/day and ensuing traffic, residential tenants, office workers, retail shoppers and potential bar/restaurant patrons. The light, glare and noise from the proposed Quendall development would adversely impact quality of life and property values for the residents and homeowners of Barbee Mill. 6) Environmental Impact a. The true baseline character of the Quendall property is unknown until the EPA mandated remedial action is fully specified and completed. We believe that the DEIS proposes prematurely, approval of a BINDING site plan for specifications of square feet of various building types, number of parking spaces, roads, traffic and egress to and from the development. Approving the BINDING plan PRIOR TO completed the mandated remedial clean up of the Superfund sight is not only unwise and imprudent but the long term consequences and negative impacts are just too great. As homeowners, this is not the legacy we want to have to live with nor is what we want for our health, our quality of life and our property values. 30 cont. 31 32 33 34 35 36 b. Mayor Law declared in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Clean, healthy air; high quality drinking water; and trails and green open spaces are key to keeping our city a great place to live and work. Expanding our tree canopy, creating a better trail system, and protecting our environment provides many benefits to the city and boosts property values by making neighborhoods greener.”Unfortunately, the current proposal for Quendall runs completely contrary to the Mayor’s pledge. c. Superfund Site Carcinogens & The Impact on The Environment—The The EPA has tremendous concerns about the carcinogenic substances on the Quendall site, cleanup and the adverse impact the cleanup would have on the Lake, including fishing and swimming and on several species. We share this concern. (EPA ID# WAD980639215). i. They state: “The primary contaminants of concern are carcinogenic PAHs and benzene. These contaminants are found in the soil and ground water throughout the site. These compounds are found at concentrations well above State cleanup levels for residential and industrial sites. At some locations on the site, creosote product has been found under the surface. In some areas the product is four to six feet thick. Releases of these contaminants to Lake Washington are of particular concern. Lake Washington is used for a variety of recreational purposes including fishing and swimming. The southern end of Lake Washington, including the area where the site is located, is considered prime habitat for rearing of juvenile Chinook, which is a Federal Threatened Species, and other salmon stocks. The Cedar River, which enters Lake Washington approximately two miles from the site, supports the largest sockeye run in the contiguous United States. Lake Washington also supports several sensitive environments including habitat for bull trout and the bald eagle. In addition, there are two swimming beaches located within one half mile of the site.” As homeowners at Barbee Mill, we enjoy having access to the shoreline in our development and do not want to see it adversely impacted by release of contaminates nor do we want to put the health of our families at risk. d. We understand that the EPA has jurisdiction over the remediation and cleanup of the Superfund Site at Quendall Terminals. We are extremely concerned about what carcinogenic contaminants will be released into the air and water (through either surface or aquifer transfer) and into our neighborhoods and into our shoreline and May Creek as a result of the initial cleanup process. We are also extremely concerned the adverse impact that the proposed mitigation, landfilling, grading, piling driving and other redevelopment activities will have on our neighborhoods and our residents. Furthermore, the DEIS proposes no dust control measures during the construction process to minimize contaminant transportation to Barbee Mill Homes. We believe strongly that it is NOT PRUDENT OR RESPONSIBLE to approve any BINDING redevelopment proposal for this site until the remediation and cleanup of this critical Superfund site has been thoroughly planned and safely planned, executed and effectively completed by the EPA. To expedite the redevelopment process in order to pursue redevelopment income, puts at risk and adversely affects the health and lives of the immediate neighborhood residents, users of Lake Washington and the existing wildlife. Pursuing binding development agreements BEFORE 37 38 39 40 41 Superfund cleanup, would be an extremely poor decision with a tremendously risky outcome. e. Wetlands— The overall wetlands in the Quendall property are at least twice the size they are portrayed as in the EIS. In particular in the Southwest corner (a small blue dot labeled “H”) is nearly an acre in total size, which is 50-times the size of what is portrayed in the DEIS. i. The Wetland buffer area for shoreline wetlands should remain at a minimum of 50 ft and should not be reduced for shoreline trails or buildings as currently proposed and shown on figure 2-7. ii. Substituting Wetland “I” or “J”, which is nothing more than a drainage ditch, (per figure 2.6, 2.7 and 2.11) which are separated by Ripley Lane & the railroad tracks and have absolutely no continuity with the Quendall site are not adequate or appropriate solutions for mitigating onsite wetlands throughout the Quendall site including adjacent to Barbee Mill. f. Wildlife—The EIS makes no mention of existing wildlife or mitigation for their loss of habitat from the proposed construction. There are ospreys, eagles, herons, deer, hummingbirds, and other species living in the wetlands and natural habitat of the Quendall property. CONCLUSIONS 1) We recommend that the City does NOT PROCEED with the current BINDING proposal as outlined in the Draft EIS. Of the three alternatives proposed, we believe that the ONLY viable alternative is that of “NO ACTION.” 2) We certainly hope that Mayor Law meant what he pledged in his 2010 State of The City address when he stated: “By engaging citizens to participate in the process we are starting to create a picture of a city that is a leader in growth management.” a. Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, City Planners and Hearing Examiner, as citizens of Renton we are participating in the DEIS public hearing process and we are loudly saying that the proposals outlined in the DEIS for the Quendall Terminal Redevelopment are in no way in alignment with that goal of responsible growth management and would have tremendous adverse impacts on the surrounding community. 3) Mayor Law also concluded his 2010 State of the City address with these words: “I am optimistic about the future. I am optimistic because people in our community are willing to step up and do what is necessary; because it is through partnerships that we tackle tough issues; and because we never quit planning for the future of this great community.” a. So here we are, the people of Renton stepping up and tackling the tough issues of a poorly thought out, extremely inappropriate and binding DEIS proposal that is completely out of character with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. IF approved and developed, the proposed Quendall development would be a devastating destruction to the shoreline of Lake Washington and to the surrounding community. This proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Property is definitely NOT what we want to see in the future of our great community. 41 cont. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 4) We believe that this proposal would have a tremendously adverse impact on the existing adjacent neighborhoods especially our Barbee Mill community. The proposed Quendall development would negatively impact and affect traffic, public safety, quality of life and property values in Barbee Mill and surrounding neighborhoods. 5) As homeowners, taxpayers and citizens of the City of Renton, we urge the City of Renton to NOT approve this binding proposal for the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Proposal. The only one of its alternatives that is viable is that of “NO ACTION!” 49 50 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-203 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 21 Linda Borgenson 1. See the response to Comment 1 in DEIS Letter 12. 2. See the response to Comment 2 in DEIS Letter 12. 3. See the response to Comment 3 in DEIS Letter 12. 4. See the response to Comment 4 in DEIS Letter 12. 5. See the response to Comment 5 in DEIS Letter 12. 6. See the response to Comment 6 in DEIS Letter 12. 7. See the response to Comment 7 in DEIS Letter 12. 8. See the response to Comment 8 in DEIS Letter 12. 9. See the response to Comment 9 in DEIS Letter 12. 10. See the response to Comment 10 in DEIS Letter 12. 11. See the response to Comment 11 in DEIS Letter 12. 12. See the response to Comment 12 in DEIS Letter 12. 13. See the response to Comment 13 in DEIS Letter 12. 14. See the response to Comment 14 in DEIS Letter 12. 15. See the response to Comment 15 in DEIS Letter 12. 16. See the response to Comment 16 in DEIS Letter 12. 17. See the response to Comment 17 in DEIS Letter 12. 18. See the response to Comment 18 in DEIS Letter 12. 19. See the response to Comment 19 in DEIS Letter 12. 20. See the response to Comment 20 in DEIS Letter 12. 21. See the response to Comment 21 in DEIS Letter 12. 22. See the response to Comment 22 in DEIS Letter 12. 23. See the response to Comment 23 in DEIS Letter 12. 24. See the response to Comment 24 in DEIS Letter 12. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-204 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 25. See the response to Comment 25 in DEIS Letter 12. 26. See the response to Comment 26 in DEIS Letter 12. 27. See the response to Comment 27 in DEIS Letter 12. 28. See the response to Comment 28 in DEIS Letter 12. 29. See the response to Comment 29 in DEIS Letter 12. 30. See the response to Comment 30 in DEIS Letter 12. 31. See the response to Comment 31 in DEIS Letter 12. 32. See the response to Comment 32 in DEIS Letter 12. 33. See the response to Comment 33 in DEIS Letter 12. 34. See the response to Comment 34 in DEIS Letter 12. 35. See the response to Comment 35 in DEIS Letter 12. 36. See the response to Comment 36 in DEIS Letter 12. 37. See the response to Comment 37 in DEIS Letter 12. 38. See the response to Comment 38 in DEIS Letter 12. 39. See the response to Comment 39 in DEIS Letter 12. 40. See the response to Comment 40 in DEIS Letter 12. 41. See the response to Comment 41 in DEIS Letter 12. 42. See the response to Comment 42 in DEIS Letter 12. 43. See the response to Comment 43 in DEIS Letter 12. 44. See the response to Comment 44 in DEIS Letter 12. 45. See the response to Comment 45 in DEIS Letter 12. 46. See the response to Comment 46 in DEIS Letter 12. 47. See the response to Comment 47 in DEIS Letter 12. 48. See the response to Comment 48 in DEIS Letter 12. 49. See the response to Comment 49 in DEIS Letter 12. 50. See the response to Comment 50 in DEIS Letter 12. From: Tony Boydston [mailto:bonethedawgs@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 10:07 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: quedell project My name is tony boydston. I'm the owner of (2) properties this project will impact. I own 3713 & 3901 lake washington blvd, renton wa 98056. My mailing address is 3920 ne 11th pl renton wa 98056. This project is like trying to make a bowling ball fit threw a garden hose. With close to 2000 to 3000 cars trying to fit in the tiny 2 lane road daily would kill kennydale. It would take 4 hrs just to get on I-405. To put 800 apartments & retail space and all that entails JUST WON"T WORK!!! I hope the city of renton takes this in consideration. It sounds good in theory, but would cause more problems then it's worth. Thank-you!!! Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-206 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 22 Tony Boydston 1. Your comment is noted for the record. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum represent a comprehensive review of transportation impacts of existing and future traffic operations in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site. They specifically account for general and discrete pipeline development (including Barbee Mill, Hawks Landing and the Kennydale Apartments); have been updated to account for peak utilization of the Seahawks Training Facility; consider regional growth and traffic demand in the vicinity with and without future planned widening of I-405; and, reflect the latest available regional forecasts of population and employment levels throughout the Puget Sound. Identified mitigation measures include transportation improvements that would be required to mitigate project traffic impacts with or without WSDOT I-405 Improvements. Without any I-405 Improvements, significant arterial and intersection improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard, at site access intersections, and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramp junctions would be required to be completed as part of the project (see EIS Addendum Section 3.4, Transportation, and Appendix E for details). As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures, and vehicle trips and traffic impacts associated with redevelopment would be reduced to acceptable levels. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page 2-1) for details on transportation/traffic and FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1- 20 for the final list of mitigation measures with the Preferred Alternative. In addition, in 2014 the City of Renton conducted a review of cumulative transportation impacts along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor, including the Quendall Terminals Project and five other known pipeline projects (City of Renton Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton, October 2014). The review concluded that project- specific mitigation without I-405 improvements for Quendall Terminals would be adequate in the near-term and the relocation of the future signalized access into the site from Ripley Lane to N 43rd Street should be considered. As a result, mitigation measures for the Quendall Terminals Project have been modified in this FEIS to allow the City, WSDOT, the applicant and other adjacent property owners to further consider this potential relocation in future design of the interchange system (see FEIS Appendix C for details and FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures with the Preferred Alternative). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 1 Date: January 21,2011 To: City of Renton Planning Department Attn: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7314 vdolbee@rentonwa.gov From: Name: Ronald and Vanessa Brazg Address: 1019 N 42nd Pl, Renton WA 98056 Phone Number: 425-746-7768 Email Address: rbrazg@comcast.net Subject: Public Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal Draft EIS (LUA09-151) Following are our comments regarding the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal site as outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). As homeowners, tax payers and citizens of the City of Renton, we believe that the proposed and binding Quendall development proposal has tremendous negative and adverse impacts to the environment, property, the neighborhood and our Barbee Mill community and should NOT be approved. 1) Size & Scale Impact a. Scale—The proposed scale, density and height of the buildings in both alternatives are completely out-of-scale, incompatible and inconsistent with all neighborhoods on the entire shoreline of Lake Washington. The typical height limit for buildings along the Lake is 35 ft. The proposed heights and densities exceed those of Downtown Kirkland, Carillon Point, Bellevue and Seattle’s Lake Washington facing neighborhoods. Furthermore, the proposed scale, density and height of the Quendall proposal are inconsistent and incompatible with adjacent neighborhoods, the East facing shoreline of Mercer Island. It will completely dwarf the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. b. The proposed buildings would be more than 40 ft taller than the height of the Barbee Mill homes. And they would be more than double the height of all nearby residences! The proposed buildings are nearly 90 ft in height although they are marked as 77 ft on the applicants elevation drawings, which is 3/4 the height of the Seahawks/VMAC Facility and the Boeing Airplane Factory. Again this is completely out-of-scale with the Barbee Mill neighborhood AND anything else along the Lake Washington shoreline. (DEIS 3.5-12) i. Figure 3.7-2 in the DEIS is an inaccurate and misleading rendering that attempts to conceal the height and visual impact of both proposal alternatives. c. The proposed architectural design resembles an industrial park and does not have the look or the feel of a residential neighborhood. It is certainly “not consistent with the existing urban character” (as claimed in DEIS 3.5- 12) of any of the immediate and nearby residential neighborhoods, including Barbee Mill. The proposed scale, density and character would Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 2 be an eyesore no matter what angle it is viewed from within the adjacent neighborhoods or from lakefront properties along Mercer. d. The proposed design looks more like the Landing, which is sandwiched in between a shopping center and the country’s second largest airplane factory and which is NOT located on the shores of one of the most beautiful lakes in the state and which is NOT located in the middle of an existing residential area. e. The Applicant claims that this area along the Lake Washington shoreline is currently a high-density urban environment. (DEIS 3.5-12) This statement is misleading and couldn’t be farther from the truth as all neighboring areas are completely residential (with the exception of the Seahawks facility.) f. The proposed designs and project scope, scale and density are inappropriate for the shoreline of Lake Washington and do not in any way take advantage of the Lake front location and view. The buildings face each other instead of the Lake. The primary lake view outlook and central lakefront architectural feature is a semi-circular parking lot. i. The Mayor stated in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Renton still has some amazing waterfront property on Lake Washington.” We couldn’t agree more. However, this proposal in no way takes advantage of or capitalizes on this amazing piece of waterfront property. In fact, the proposal looks like the City of Renton has taken a giant step backwards by proposing a self- facing vs. lake facing, residential complex, retail and office park with limited green space and tree canopy. This is not responsible growth. Nor is it responsible stewardship and development of the largest piece of remaining undeveloped land along the shoreline of beautiful Lake Washington. ii. The proposal calls for a straight, walled, 2-story parking garage, approximately 1000 ft in length, to traverse the entire Lake Washington frontage of the Quendall development with absolutely no undulation. There is nothing in the architectural design to break up the negative, visual impact of this two-story wall facing the Lake. This scale of this lake-facing 2-story garage wall is unheard of in residential zoning and lakefront zoning and does not fit the character nor complement the adjacent neighborhoods. g. The proposed development does NOT complement or add value to the existing neighborhoods especially neighboring Barbee Mill. Instead, this development would be tremendously destructive to the property value for the surrounding neighborhoods (including Barbee Mill, Kennydale, Newcastle and the East-facing side of Mercer Island) and detrimental to the quality of life for residents. 2) Density Impact a. This proposal repeatedly and misleadingly (DEIS 3.9-1) describes the Quendall development as “compatible with the existing neighborhoods.” This is preposterous and we strongly disagree. For example, Barbee Mill to the south has a planned density of 5 residential units per acre and contains no commercial (office or retail) space. The Quendall proposal is for 37 residential units per acre plus up to a ¼ million square feet of commercial space that would accommodate up to 2000 daily visitors. This is approximately 7 times the density of the local residential areas Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 3 and is in no way “consistent with the existing urban character of the area.” In fact, the existing character of the local area can only accurately be described as residential. Both proposal alternatives, present tremendous compatibility impacts with the surrounding neighborhoods. b. Commercial/residential buildings in Renton and in the greater Eastside area, have tended to have a history of high-turnover, high-vacancy and have not proven to be particularly commercially viable. Our concern is that tenants of apartments and commercial space will have no vested interest in the neighborhood, the community or in the future vision for the city of Renton. And that such a development, could wind up sitting vacant for many years to come. 3) Traffic, Transportation & Parking Impact a. The traffic impact assessment in the DEIS is completely unrealistic. To begin with, the analysis in the DEIS does not take into account the traffic study and analysis for the adjacent Hawk’s Landing (Pan Abode) development, which estimated an additional 1400+ automotive trips a day flowing onto Lake Washington Blvd and adding to traffic congestion on the surrounding streets and I-405 exit 7 on-ramps and off-ramps. i. Before this or any other area development proposal is approved, a new, comprehensive traffic analysis should be done that focuses on the combined traffic impact of: Quendall Terminal property, Hawk’s Landing/Pan Abode property, Seakhawks/VMAC Facility, Ripley Lane neighborhood, Barbee Mill, Kennydale neighborhood, I-405 congestion, commuters trying to bypass 405 congestion on Lake Washington Blvd and the City’s goal of providing direct access to Lake Washington from Park Dr & Sunset Blvd. This comprehensive traffic analysis should reflect all existing, proposed and potential developments and their collective impact on the immediate vicinity and existing neighborhoods. WSDOT analysis, future plans and funding for I-405 must be factored into the traffic analysis and any infrastructure planning. (Reference: Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009) b. The proposal calls for an unacceptable increase in traffic with an estimated 2000 cars a day. Add to that, the estimated 1400 automotive trips a day from the proposed Hawks Landing development. The current infrastructure can in no way support the increases being proposed. There are no proposed plans to improve or widen the immediate roads or build the proper egress and ingress access roads to/from the proposed Quendall development. c. The proposal calls for N 43rd St to serve as the primary entrance to the Quendall property. This narrow, residential street is already the primary entrance for the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. This un-striped, 2-lane 135-ft long street, which has two stop signs and a railroad crossing, can in no way accommodate the proposed additional 2000 cars per day PLUS the cars of Barbee Mill residents. Furthermore, 43rd has already become plagued by a dangerous trends of drivers making hazardous u-turns and 3-point turns in the intersection of 43rd and Lake Washington Blvd. Given all this, it is shocking that the DEIS does NOT list NE 43rd St as a roadway condition concern. NE 43rd St is in no way sufficient to serve as the primary entrance for both Quendall and Barbee Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 4 Mill it cannot safely and effectively accommodate the additional influx of 2000 cars per day. This proposal will result in intolerable traffic congestion, increased risk of accidents, noise pollution and egress problems for Barbee Mill Homeowners. i. 2000 additional cars/day will translate into 700 to 800 ft of traffic jams along Lake Washington Blvd, 43rd and Ripley Lane. The current infrastructure can in no way handle this increased volume. Lake Washington Blvd. is a narrow, 2-lane, scenic, curving, hilly, 25 mph road with bike lanes in both margins and many residential driveways. It is already extremely difficult to navigate Lake Washington Blvd given the present volume of traffic. Furthermore, it is already difficult with the present volume of traffic to enter or exit the Barbee Mill development at 43rd or 41st during the peak traffic hours and/or on sunny summer days from Lake Washington Blvd. Lake Washington Blvd does not have the capacity to handle the 2000/day proposed additional cars (3400+ if you factor in Hawk’s Landing). And, any serious infrastructure modifications to Lake Washington Blvd would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhoods, the environmentally sensitive May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline. 1. As a demonstration, one need to look no further than the congestion, parking and traffic nightmare that was created on 1/14/11 when hundreds of Seahawk Fans (including children and pets) and their vehicles descended on the intersection of Ripley Lane and Lake Washington Blvd. Cars were parked all over 43rd, 44th, Lake Washington & Ripley Lane. It made it nearly impossible to enter/exit Barbee Mill on 43rd. Fans also jammed the 30th Bridge and surrounding Kennydale neighborhoods, which has been proposed as an alternate travel route for the Quendall Property. 2. As a demonstration, congestion is also extremely heavy when during the Seahawk Training Days in August, despite the fact that the Seahawks arrange for buses and parking in the Landing in their effort to mitigate what would be the adverse impact of an approximate 2000 cars per day from coming into and parking in the neighborhoods adjacent to Ripley Lane including Barbee Mill. 3. We do not understand why the proposal does not bring traffic directly into the center of the Quendall property via a new access road which would need to be built to cross Ripley Lane and that would be more capable of handling that volume of traffic. However, we are not sure that any development plan that calls for 2000 or more additional cars/day on area roads can be adequately addressed through existing, modified or new infrastructure. 4. The details of the traffic analysis for Lake Washington Blvd at 43rd have been left out of (Table 3.9-1) AND there is no mention in the proposal of improving 43rd. ii. We are concerned that frustrated motorists who are eager to avoid the traffic congestion on Lake Washington Blvd will either make Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 5 dangerous u-turns and/or choose to use Barbee Mill as a major arterial north/south bypass route for Lake Washington Blvd. The streets within Barbee Mill can in no way accommodate this increased traffic volume. This bypass traffic would present a tremendous risk and inconvenience for Barbee Mill residents. It would hamper ability to safely enter and exit our own neighborhood and residences. The added traffic on Barbee Mill’s streets would create a public safety risks for residents as well as for area pedestrians, joggers, cyclists, children in strollers and pets that enjoy our streets. We are extremely concerned about the added danger of so many motorists trying to navigate the already hazardous blind curve at 42nd (just shortly after you turn into Barbee Mill from 43rd). The bypass traffic would also generate significant noise pollution. We believe that this proposal and its traffic volume will not only impact Barbee Mill homeowner and community safety but that it will adversely impact and reduce property values and quality of life for Barbee Mill homeowners. d. Traffic on I-405 at 44th and 30th is already one of the most frequently congested parts of the freeway in both the North and South lanes. Congestion occurs not only at peak traffic hours but throughout the majority of the day. The freeway, just as the neighboring roads, can in no way accommodate an additional influx of 2000 cars per day. Throughout the proposal, the applicant has stated that various traffic impacts could be mitigated through a coordinated effort with WSDOT. However, WSDOT went on record during the DEIS Scoping Summary stating that “the potential I-405/NE 44 St interchange improvements project is not funded, and is not likely to be funded in the foreseeable future; the transportation analysis should not assume that this project is complete or will occur.” (Pg 5-EIS Scoping Summary) We believe that approving a major Quendall development plan without WSDOT commitment, funding, schedule and a plan in place to improve this interchange would have irreversible consequences and would cause a tremendous number of adverse impacts. i. There are scenarios in the proposal that suggest using the I-405 30th street onramp/offramp (exit 6) and then routing cars through the hilly, residential neighborhoods in Kennydale along 30th, 40th, Burnett and Park. This is not a realistic alternative and is equally as dangerous as cars choosing to use Barbee Mill as a shortcut. And it could encourage drivers travelling northbound and southbound on Lake Washington Blvd to take a shortcut through Barbee Mill. e. Transportation—The proposal does not include any plans to develop, improve or encourage public transit in the vicinity. This means that there would be no alternative form of transportation for the estimated 2000+ daily visitors and tenants. It is not an environmentally responsible transportation design solution to place 2000 additional cars onto neighborhood streets and the lakefront in this residential community without providing realistic transportation alternatives. i. In the Mayor’s 2010 State of the City Address, he declared “I believe that it is vital that we have the right infrastructure in place now to serve the needs of our future. We will continue to work with Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 6 the state and regional transportation organizations to make critical investments to create an affective transportation system that allows goods and people to move efficiently.” The Quendall proposal does not provide for any investments to create an affective transportation solution in the area NOR does it put the right infrastructure in place to serve the needs of the immediate area and alleviate traffic and noise and air pollution impacts and public safety risks. f. Parking—In the Proposal Alternative 2, there are surface level parking lots for 220 cars up placed right up against the entire north property line for Barbee Mill. This is in no way consistent with land use compatibility in the neighborhood and will adversely impact property values and quality of life. Nor is Proposal Alternative 1, which calls for a 6-story building to be placed right up against the north fence of Barbee Mill. We believe that it is not an acceptable plan to place parking lots, tall buildings and/or delivery entrances right up against the north Barbee Mill fence. i. We are concerned that if fees are charged for parking in the Quendall development, that visitors and tenants will seek out free parking in the adjacent neighborhood streets especially at Barbee Mill—which already suffers from insufficient street parking for residents and guests. 4) Public Safety Impact a. Cyclist Safety/Pedestrian/Runners Safety—Lake Washington Blvd was never meant to be a major thoroughfare. It is a hilly, scenic route through residential neighborhoods. It has no sidewalks and is very poorly lit at night. In fact, it is already quite dangerous on winter nights to turn into the Barbee Mill development at either 43rd or 44th St as there are no streetlights at either intersection. Lake Washington Blvd (in addition to Barbee Mill streets) is currently used not only by vehicles but also by pedestrians walking their pets and children, joggers and bicyclists. Given that there are no sidewalks and poor lighting along the road, such an increase in cars would not only cause traffic gridlock and backups but would also present a tremendous safety hazard to all using the bike lanes and shoulders for purposes other than driving. i. As a demonstration, a Barbee Mill resident counted more than 140 cyclists using Lake Washington Blvd and crossing 43rd St in a 90- minute period on a recent summer Saturday morning. b. We are concerned that the proposed public access trail and above ground parking lots located right against Barbee Mill North fence would invite evening transient traffic and loitering that could lead to crime. This fence backs up against an existing quiet residential neighborhood. This would not only adversely impact quality of life for Barbee Mill residents but also reduce property values. c. We are concerned that the proposed traffic volume and insufficient infrastructure, would affect the ability of emergency vehicles and first responders to quickly access the Barbee Mill community (and Ripley Lane neighborhood) in the event of an emergency. This puts the lives and health of residents at risk. d. We are concerned that a newly accessible open public space, trails, and parking lots may become an attractive target to a criminal element and would bring an increase risk of crime, vandalism, gang activity, graffiti, Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 7 noise, and other negative and unwanted activity that would put neighborhood homeowners’ safety and security at risk. 5) Light, Glare & Noise Impact a. We have tremendous concern over the amount light and glare that would be emitted from the proposed high-density residential buildings (proposed to be as high as 90ft) and the evening and night-time restaurant patrons and shoppers in the retail development. We also are concerned about the noise pollution that would come from delivery trucks, giant HVAC units, 2000+ cars/day and ensuing traffic, residential tenants, office workers, retail shoppers and potential bar/restaurant patrons. The light, glare and noise from the proposed Quendall development would adversely impact quality of life and property values for the residents and homeowners of Barbee Mill. 6) Environmental Impact a. The true baseline character of the Quendall property is unknown until the EPA mandated remedial action is fully specified and completed. We believe that the DEIS proposes prematurely, approval of a BINDING site plan for specifications of square feet of various building types, number of parking spaces, roads, traffic and egress to and from the development. Approving the BINDING plan PRIOR TO completed the mandated remedial clean up of the Superfund sight is not only unwise and imprudent but the long term consequences and negative impacts are just too great. As homeowners, this is not the legacy we want to have to live with nor is what we want for our health, our quality of life and our property values. b. Mayor Law declared in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Clean, healthy air; high quality drinking water; and trails and green open spaces are key to keeping our city a great place to live and work. Expanding our tree canopy, creating a better trail system, and protecting our environment provides many benefits to the city and boosts property values by making neighborhoods greener.” Unfortunately, the current proposal for Quendall runs completely contrary to the Mayor’s pledge. c. Superfund Site Carcinogens & The Impact on The Environment—The The EPA has tremendous concerns about the carcinogenic substances on the Quendall site, cleanup and the adverse impact the cleanup would have on the Lake, including fishing and swimming and on several species. We share this concern. (EPA ID# WAD980639215). i. They state: “The primary contaminants of concern are carcinogenic PAHs and benzene. These contaminants are found in the soil and ground water throughout the site. These compounds are found at concentrations well above State cleanup levels for residential and industrial sites. At some locations on the site, creosote product has been found under the surface. In some areas the product is four to six feet thick. Releases of these contaminants to Lake Washington are of particular concern. Lake Washington is used for a variety of recreational purposes including fishing and swimming. The southern end of Lake Washington, including the area where the site is located, is considered prime habitat for rearing of juvenile Chinook, which is a Federal Threatened Species, and other salmon stocks. The Cedar River, which enters Lake Washington approximately two Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 8 miles from the site, supports the largest sockeye run in the contiguous United States. Lake Washington also supports several sensitive environments including habitat for bull trout and the bald eagle. In addition, there are two swimming beaches located within one half mile of the site.” As homeowners at Barbee Mill, we enjoy having access to the shoreline in our development and do not want to see it adversely impacted by release of contaminates nor do we want to put the health of our families at risk. d. We understand that the EPA has jurisdiction over the remediation and cleanup of the Superfund Site at Quendall Terminals. We are extremely concerned about what carcinogenic contaminants will be released into the air and water (through either surface or aquifer transfer) and into our neighborhoods and into our shoreline and May Creek as a result of the initial cleanup process. We are also extremely concerned the adverse impact that the proposed mitigation, landfilling, grading, piling driving and other redevelopment activities will have on our neighborhoods and our residents. Furthermore, the DEIS proposes no dust control measures during the construction process to minimize contaminant transportation to Barbee Mill Homes. We believe strongly that it is NOT PRUDENT OR RESPONSIBLE to approve any BINDING redevelopment proposal for this site until the remediation and cleanup of this critical Superfund site has been thoroughly planned and safely planned, executed and effectively completed by the EPA. To expedite the redevelopment process in order to pursue redevelopment income, puts at risk and adversely affects the health and lives of the immediate neighborhood residents, users of Lake Washington and the existing wildlife. Pursuing binding development agreements BEFORE Superfund cleanup, would be an extremely poor decision with a tremendously risky outcome. e. Wetlands— The overall wetlands in the Quendall property are at least twice the size they are portrayed as in the EIS. In particular in the Southwest corner (a small blue dot labeled “H”) is nearly an acre in total size, which is 50-times the size of what is portrayed in the DEIS. i. The Wetland buffer area for shoreline wetlands should remain at a minimum of 50 ft and should not be reduced for shoreline trails or buildings as currently proposed and shown on figure 2-7. ii. Substituting Wetland “I” or “J”, which is nothing more than a drainage ditch, (per figure 2.6, 2.7 and 2.11) which are separated by Ripley Lane & the railroad tracks and have absolutely no continuity with the Quendall site are not adequate or appropriate solutions for mitigating onsite wetlands throughout the Quendall site including adjacent to Barbee Mill. f. Wildlife—The EIS makes no mention of existing wildlife or mitigation for their loss of habitat from the proposed construction. There are ospreys, eagles, herons, deer, hummingbirds, and other species living in the wetlands and natural habitat of the Quendall property. CONCLUSIONS 1) We recommend that the City does NOT PROCEED with the current BINDING proposal as outlined in the Draft EIS. Of the three alternatives proposed, we believe that the ONLY viable alternative is that of “NO ACTION.” Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 9 2) We certainly hope that Mayor Law meant what he pledged in his 2010 State of The City address when he stated: “By engaging citizens to participate in the process we are starting to create a picture of a city that is a leader in growth management.” a. Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, City Planners and Hearing Examiner, as citizens of Renton we are participating in the DEIS public hearing process and we are loudly saying that the proposals outlined in the DEIS for the Quendall Terminal Redevelopment are in no way in alignment with that goal of responsible growth management and would have tremendous adverse impacts on the surrounding community. 3) Mayor Law also concluded his 2010 State of the City address with these words: “I am optimistic about the future. I am optimistic because people in our community are willing to step up and do what is necessary; because it is through partnerships that we tackle tough issues; and because we never quit planning for the future of this great community.” a. So here we are, the people of Renton stepping up and tackling the tough issues of a poorly thought out, extremely inappropriate and binding DEIS proposal that is completely out of character with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. IF approved and developed, the proposed Quendall development would be a devastating destruction to the shoreline of Lake Washington and to the surrounding community. This proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Property is definitely NOT what we want to see in the future of our great community. 4) We believe that this proposal would have a tremendously adverse impact on the existing adjacent neighborhoods especially our Barbee Mill community. The proposed Quendall development would negatively impact and affect traffic, public safety, quality of life and property values in Barbee Mill and surrounding neighborhoods. 5) As homeowners, taxpayers and citizens of the City of Renton, we urge the City of Renton to NOT approve this binding proposal for the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Proposal. The only one of its alternatives that is viable is that of “NO ACTION!” Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-216 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 23 Ronald and Vanessa Brazg 1. See the response to Comment 1 in DEIS Letter 12. 2. See the response to Comment 2 in DEIS Letter 12. 3. See the response to Comment 3 in DEIS Letter 12. 4. See the response to Comment 4 in DEIS Letter 12. 5. See the response to Comment 5 in DEIS Letter 12. 6. See the response to Comment 6 in DEIS Letter 12. 7. See the response to Comment 7 in DEIS Letter 12. 8. See the response to Comment 8 in DEIS Letter 12. 9. See the response to Comment 9 in DEIS Letter 12. 10. See the response to Comment 10 in DEIS Letter 12. 11. See the response to Comment 11 in DEIS Letter 12. 12. See the response to Comment 12 in DEIS Letter 12. 13. See the response to Comment 13 in DEIS Letter 12. 14. See the response to Comment 14 in DEIS Letter 12. 15. See the response to Comment 15 in DEIS Letter 12. 16. See the response to Comment 16 in DEIS Letter 12. 17. See the response to Comment 17 in DEIS Letter 12. 18. See the response to Comment 18 in DEIS Letter 12. 19. See the response to Comment 19 in DEIS Letter 12. 20. See the response to Comment 20 in DEIS Letter 12. 21. See the response to Comment 21 in DEIS Letter 12. 22. See the response to Comment 22 in DEIS Letter 12. 23. See the response to Comment 23 in DEIS Letter 12. 24. See the response to Comment 24 in DEIS Letter 12. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-217 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 25. See the response to Comment 25 in DEIS Letter 12. 26. See the response to Comment 26 in DEIS Letter 12. 27. See the response to Comment 27 in DEIS Letter 12. 28. See the response to Comment 28 in DEIS Letter 12. 29. See the response to Comment 29 in DEIS Letter 12. 30. See the response to Comment 30 in DEIS Letter 12. 31. See the response to Comment 31 in DEIS Letter 12. 32. See the response to Comment 32 in DEIS Letter 12. 33. See the response to Comment 33 in DEIS Letter 12. 34. See the response to Comment 34 in DEIS Letter 12. 35. See the response to Comment 35 in DEIS Letter 12. 36. See the response to Comment 36 in DEIS Letter 12. 37. See the response to Comment 37 in DEIS Letter 12. 38. See the response to Comment 38 in DEIS Letter 12. 39. See the response to Comment 39 in DEIS Letter 12. 40. See the response to Comment 40 in DEIS Letter 12. 41. See the response to Comment 41 in DEIS Letter 12. 42. See the response to Comment 42 in DEIS Letter 12. 43. See the response to Comment 43 in DEIS Letter 12. 44. See the response to Comment 44 in DEIS Letter 12. 45. See the response to Comment 45 in DEIS Letter 12. 46. See the response to Comment 46 in DEIS Letter 12. 47. See the response to Comment 47 in DEIS Letter 12. 48. See the response to Comment 48 in DEIS Letter 12. 49. See the response to Comment 49 in DEIS Letter 12. 50. See the response to Comment 50 in DEIS Letter 12. From: Mike Cero 8300 Avalon Drive Mercer Island, WA 98040 206.419.0657 mscero@comcast.net To: Vanessa Dolbee Department of Community and Economic Development Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 vdolbee@renton.gov Date: January 10, 2011 Subject: Quendall Terminals (LUA09-151, EIS,ECF,BSP,SM, SA-M) DEISStatement Dear Ms Dolbee, As a Mercer Island resident and Councilmember, I am concerned with the increased glare or light the development will spill on Mercer Island. It is the purpose of this DEISstatement that the project uses the most advanced and effective design minimizing glare especially but not limited to security lighting, parking lot lighting and vehicular lights. Page 1-11 of the Draft EISDecember 2010 identifies that the development will"add new sources of light and glare ..." and "...generallighting levels on the site would be higher.II Throughout the DEIS, mitigating glare and lighting to adjacent properties is suggested rather than directed, ie • P 1-22: Reflectivity of glazing materials, as well as the use of shading devices, could be considered as part of the facade design in order to minimize the potential glare impacts to surrounding uses. • P.3.6-4: Exterior building lighting, parking lot lighting and pedestrian lighting could be directed downward and away from surrounding buildings and properties to minimize the impacts to adjacent uses.Reflectivity of glazing materials, as well as the use of shading devices, could be considered as part of the facade design in order to minimize the potential glare impacts to surrounding uses. • P.3.6-16: Exterior building lighting,parking lot lighting and pedestrian lighting could be directed downward and away from surrounding buildings and properties to minimize the impacts to adjacent uses. Reflectivity of glazing materials, as well as the use of shading devices, could be considered as part of the facade design in order to minimize the potential glare impacts to surrounding uses. • P.3.7-24: Exterior building lighting,parking lot lighting and pedestrian lighting could be directed downward and away from surrounding buildings and adjacent properties to minimize the impacts to adjacent uses. • P.3.7-24: Reflectivity of glazing materials, as well as the use of shading devices, could be considered as part of the facade design in order to minimize the potential glare impacts to surrounding uses. I disagree with the DEIS'scharacterization on P3.7-24 that "From the west {i.e. Mercer Island}, lighting on the Quendall Terminals site would generally appear as a continuation of urban lighting associated with the City of Renton. In practice, a continuation of urban lighting consistent with development south of the Terminals will require strict and adherence with the most up-to-date building materials and design for minimizing glare at its present urban levels. I also request documentation supporting the statement that, "no significant light, glare or shadow impacts would be anticipated"(P3.7-26). Thank you for addressing my concerns. Sincerely, Michael R.Cera Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-220 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO LETTER 24 Mike Cero 1. Your comment is noted for the record. Mitigation measures have been identified for the Preferred Alternative to address potential light impacts on surrounding areas and the shoreline of Lake Washington (see Aesthetics/Views mitigation measures F7 and F13 in FEIS Chapter 1). These mitigation measures would minimize light and glare from the site. 2. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 1 in this letter and Aesthetics/Views mitigation measures F7 and F13 in FEIS Chapter 1. These mitigation measures would minimize light and glare from the site. 3. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 1 in this letter. 4. Your comment is noted for the record. The DEIS and EIS Addendum concluded that there are no significant light, glare, and shadow impacts that would result from the proposed redevelopment that cannot be mitigated. The conclusion of no significant impacts took into account implementation of the project mitigation measures. From: christine chen [mailto:christineschen@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 11:32 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Public Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal Draft EIS (LUA09‐151) Dear City of Renton, and the site planner, I am writing this letter to express my concern about Quendall Terminal Draft EIS(LUA09‐151). There should be NO INDUSTRIAL SITE/MIXED‐USE HOUSING SITES ALLOWED ON SHORES OF LAKE WASHINGTON IN RENTON. The entire shore side of Lake Washington Blvd should be STRICTLY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS 1) THE ONE LANE/EACH DIRECTION OF LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD CANNOT ACCOMMODATE THE POTENTIAL BUSY TRAFFIC OF THE POTENTIAL MEGA‐COMPLEX INDUSTRIAL/APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT THE I‐405 EXITS AT EXIT 7 CAN BARELY STAY MOVING DURING BUSY COMMUTE HOURS(6‐9 AM AND 4‐7 PM) 2) THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED QUENDALL TERMINAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE ENTIRE LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE ENVIRONMENT. 3) CRIME RATE IS ALREADY GOING UP IN CITY OF RENTON, ADDING MORE APARTMENT UNITS AND RETAIL SITES IN THE PEACEFUL NEIGHBORHOOD WILL DESTROY THE SAFETY OF THE AREA (LOWER KENNYDALE IS ONE OF THE SAFEST PART OF RENTON, PUTTING IN LARGE NUMBER OF APARTMENT UNITS AND RETAIL SPACES WILL INVITE CRIME TO THE AREA) 4)THERE'S A HUGE SURPLUS OF RETAIL SPACE/APARTMENT VACANCIES AT THE LANDING. THERE'S ALREADY A PLENTY OF EMPTY APARTMENT UNITS AND RETAIL SPACES IN THE CITY RENTON, THERE'S NO NEED TO ADD MORE VACANCIES/FORECLOSES TO THIS AREA. 5)THE POTENTIAL ENTRANCE OF QUENDALL TERMINAL IS AT THE NORTHERN ENTRANCE OF BARBEE MILLS, WHICH IS EXCLUSIVELY RESIDENTIAL. THE SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BE EXTREMELY COMPROMISED IF THE ENTRANCE WAY(AT 43RD ST) IS SHARED BETWEEN BARBEE MILLS RESIDENTS AND THE RETAIL/APARTMENT DWELLERS. 6)WHY IS CITY OF RENTON ALLOWING THIS OUTRAGEOUS, INCONSISTENT DESIGN ? DOES THAT MEAN ANY DEVELOPERS WILLING TO PAY A LARGE/UNUSUAL PERMIT FEE TO THE CITY OR THE GOVERNMENT CAN BUILD ANYTHING AS LONG AS THEY HAVE THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO DO SO? THANKS FOR LOOKING AT MY COMMENTS, I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR FEEDBACKS CHRISTINE CHEN 1/24/2011 VERY CONCERNED RENTON RESIDENT, Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-222 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 25 Christine Chen 1. Your comment is noted for the record. The Quendall Terminals site is zoned Commercial, Office, Residential (COR). The COR zone was established by the City to create compact, urban development in key areas of the City. According to the current Renton Comprehensive Plan, COR areas are intended to “provide opportunities for large-scale office, commercial, retail and multi-family projects developed through a master plan and site plan process. COR sites are typically transitions from an industrial use to more intensive land use. The sites offer redevelopment opportunities along Lake Washington and/or the Cedar River.” Proposed development under the Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the current City of Renton’s plans, policies, and regulations, particularly the site’s COR designation/classification. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details on the site’s land use designation and zoning classification. 2. Mitigation measures have been identified to minimize potential transportation impacts that could result with redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative. With implementation of these measures, traffic facilities within the area would operate within accepted standards, with or without future WSDOT I-405 Improvements. As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures. The project mitigation measures include: roadway widening, intersection channelization, traffic control treatments, non-motorized improvements, traffic management measures, public transportation opportunities, traffic impact fee requirements, and on-site parking management techniques. See FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. As indicated in the EIS Addendum, there are no significant transportation-related impacts that cannot be mitigated. Subsequent to the issuance of the EIS Addendum, the City of Renton conducted a review in 2014 of cumulative transportation impacts along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor, including the Quendall Terminals Project and five other known pipeline projects (City of Renton Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton, October 2014). The review concluded that-project specific mitigation without I-405 improvements for Quendall Terminals would be adequate in the near-term and the relocation of the future signalized access into the site from Ripley Lane to N 43rd Street should be considered. As a result, mitigation measures for the Quendall Terminals Project have been modified in this FEIS to allow the City, WSDOT, the applicant and other adjacent property owners to further consider this potential relocation in future design of the interchange system (see FEIS Appendix C for details and FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures with the Preferred Alternative). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 3. Your comment is noted for the record. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-223 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 4. Your comment is noted for the record. The proposed multifamily housing and commercial redevelopment could increase the amount of crime in the area due to the associated increase in residents, employees, and customers. However, this development would not necessarily increase the crime rate in the area. A number of features would be incorporated into the project to reduce the potential for crime, including adequate lighting, building identification, and vehicular circulation. As a result, the project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts on public safety. 5. Your comment is noted for the record. Market analyses prepared for the project, by the applicant, concluded that the proposed mixed-use development would be financially viable, and long-term vacancies would not be anticipated. It should also be noted that the Sanctuary and Reserve developments in the City of Renton are over 90 percent occupied, which is considered to be full occupancy. 6. The primary access to the Quendall Terminals Project would be via the Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street intersection. As indicated in EIS Addendum Section 4.8, Transportation, and Appendix E, site access via the existing N 43rd Street onto Lake Washington Boulevard would also be provided with an estimated 25 percent of all project traffic estimated to use this access. With this estimated distribution of traffic, no significant traffic operational impacts are forecast to occur at the secondary access point at N 43rd Street onto Lake Washington Boulevard with the proposed project. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page 2-1) for details on the potential transportation impacts of the proposed project. Subsequent to the issuance of the EIS Addendum, the City of Renton completed the 2014 Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton and determined that the Quendall Terminals Project should install a traffic signal at the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection as opposed to the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. However, if the traffic signal and configuration of N 43rd Street have not been constructed prior to WSDOT improvements at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, the City will consider changing the location of this signal to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard. An engineering study will be completed at that time to support the determination of the location for the installation of the traffic signal at either the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection or the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection (see FEIS Appendix C for details). 7. Your comment is noted for the record. Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 1 Date: To: City of Renton Planning Department Attn: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7314 vdolbee@rentonwa.gov From: Name: Christine Chen Address: 1128 N 41st PL, Renton, WA 98056 Phone Number: 206 229 5880 Email Address: chrisitneschen@yahoo.com Subject: Public Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal Draft EIS (LUA09-151) Following are our comments regarding the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal site as outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). As homeowners, tax payers and citizens of the City of Renton, we believe that the proposed and binding Quendall development proposal has tremendous negative and adverse impacts to the environment, property, the neighborhood and our Barbee Mill community and should NOT be approved. 1) Size & Scale Impact a. Scale—The proposed scale, density and height of the buildings in both alternatives are completely out-of-scale, incompatible and inconsistent with all neighborhoods on the entire shoreline of Lake Washington. The typical height limit for buildings along the Lake is 35 ft. The proposed heights and densities exceed those of Downtown Kirkland, Carillon Point, Bellevue and Seattle’s Lake Washington facing neighborhoods. Furthermore, the proposed scale, density and height of the Quendall proposal are inconsistent and incompatible with adjacent neighborhoods, the East facing shoreline of Mercer Island. It will completely dwarf the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. b. The proposed buildings would be more than 40 ft taller than the height of the Barbee Mill homes. And they would be more than double the height of all nearby residences! The proposed buildings are nearly 90 ft in height although they are marked as 77 ft on the applicants elevation drawings, which is 3/4 the height of the Seahawks/VMAC Facility and the Boeing Airplane Factory. Again this is completely out-of-scale with the Barbee Mill neighborhood AND anything else along the Lake Washington shoreline. (DEIS 3.5-12) i. Figure 3.7-2 in the DEIS is an inaccurate and misleading rendering that attempts to conceal the height and visual impact of both proposal alternatives. c. The proposed architectural design resembles an industrial park and does not have the look or the feel of a residential neighborhood. It is certainly “not consistent with the existing urban character” (as claimed in DEIS 3.5- 12) of any of the immediate and nearby residential neighborhoods, including Barbee Mill. The proposed scale, density and character would Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 2 be an eyesore no matter what angle it is viewed from within the adjacent neighborhoods or from lakefront properties along Mercer. d. The proposed design looks more like the Landing, which is sandwiched in between a shopping center and the country’s second largest airplane factory and which is NOT located on the shores of one of the most beautiful lakes in the state and which is NOT located in the middle of an existing residential area. e. The Applicant claims that this area along the Lake Washington shoreline is currently a high-density urban environment. (DEIS 3.5-12) This statement is misleading and couldn’t be farther from the truth as all neighboring areas are completely residential (with the exception of the Seahawks facility.) f. The proposed designs and project scope, scale and density are inappropriate for the shoreline of Lake Washington and do not in any way take advantage of the Lake front location and view. The buildings face each other instead of the Lake. The primary lake view outlook and central lakefront architectural feature is a semi-circular parking lot. i. The Mayor stated in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Renton still has some amazing waterfront property on Lake Washington.” We couldn’t agree more. However, this proposal in no way takes advantage of or capitalizes on this amazing piece of waterfront property. In fact, the proposal looks like the City of Renton has taken a giant step backwards by proposing a self- facing vs. lake facing, residential complex, retail and office park with limited green space and tree canopy. This is not responsible growth. Nor is it responsible stewardship and development of the largest piece of remaining undeveloped land along the shoreline of beautiful Lake Washington. ii. The proposal calls for a straight, walled, 2-story parking garage, approximately 1000 ft in length, to traverse the entire Lake Washington frontage of the Quendall development with absolutely no undulation. There is nothing in the architectural design to break up the negative, visual impact of this two-story wall facing the Lake. This scale of this lake-facing 2-story garage wall is unheard of in residential zoning and lakefront zoning and does not fit the character nor complement the adjacent neighborhoods. g. The proposed development does NOT complement or add value to the existing neighborhoods especially neighboring Barbee Mill. Instead, this development would be tremendously destructive to the property value for the surrounding neighborhoods (including Barbee Mill, Kennydale, Newcastle and the East-facing side of Mercer Island) and detrimental to the quality of life for residents. 2) Density Impact a. This proposal repeatedly and misleadingly (DEIS 3.9-1) describes the Quendall development as “compatible with the existing neighborhoods.” This is preposterous and we strongly disagree. For example, Barbee Mill to the south has a planned density of 5 residential units per acre and contains no commercial (office or retail) space. The Quendall proposal is for 37 residential units per acre plus up to a ¼ million square feet of commercial space that would accommodate up to 2000 daily visitors. This is approximately 7 times the density of the local residential areas Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 3 and is in no way “consistent with the existing urban character of the area.” In fact, the existing character of the local area can only accurately be described as residential. Both proposal alternatives, present tremendous compatibility impacts with the surrounding neighborhoods. b. Commercial/residential buildings in Renton and in the greater Eastside area, have tended to have a history of high-turnover, high-vacancy and have not proven to be particularly commercially viable. Our concern is that tenants of apartments and commercial space will have no vested interest in the neighborhood, the community or in the future vision for the city of Renton. And that such a development, could wind up sitting vacant for many years to come. 3) Traffic, Transportation & Parking Impact a. The traffic impact assessment in the DEIS is completely unrealistic. To begin with, the analysis in the DEIS does not take into account the traffic study and analysis for the adjacent Hawk’s Landing (Pan Abode) development, which estimated an additional 1400+ automotive trips a day flowing onto Lake Washington Blvd and adding to traffic congestion on the surrounding streets and I-405 exit 7 on-ramps and off-ramps. i. Before this or any other area development proposal is approved, a new, comprehensive traffic analysis should be done that focuses on the combined traffic impact of: Quendall Terminal property, Hawk’s Landing/Pan Abode property, Seakhawks/VMAC Facility, Ripley Lane neighborhood, Barbee Mill, Kennydale neighborhood, I-405 congestion, commuters trying to bypass 405 congestion on Lake Washington Blvd and the City’s goal of providing direct access to Lake Washington from Park Dr & Sunset Blvd. This comprehensive traffic analysis should reflect all existing, proposed and potential developments and their collective impact on the immediate vicinity and existing neighborhoods. WSDOT analysis, future plans and funding for I-405 must be factored into the traffic analysis and any infrastructure planning. (Reference: Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009) b. The proposal calls for an unacceptable increase in traffic with an estimated 2000 cars a day. Add to that, the estimated 1400 automotive trips a day from the proposed Hawks Landing development. The current infrastructure can in no way support the increases being proposed. There are no proposed plans to improve or widen the immediate roads or build the proper egress and ingress access roads to/from the proposed Quendall development. c. The proposal calls for N 43rd St to serve as the primary entrance to the Quendall property. This narrow, residential street is already the primary entrance for the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. This un-striped, 2-lane 135-ft long street, which has two stop signs and a railroad crossing, can in no way accommodate the proposed additional 2000 cars per day PLUS the cars of Barbee Mill residents. Furthermore, 43rd has already become plagued by a dangerous trends of drivers making hazardous u-turns and 3-point turns in the intersection of 43rd and Lake Washington Blvd. Given all this, it is shocking that the DEIS does NOT list NE 43rd St as a roadway condition concern. NE 43rd St is in no way sufficient to serve as the primary entrance for both Quendall and Barbee Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 4 Mill it cannot safely and effectively accommodate the additional influx of 2000 cars per day. This proposal will result in intolerable traffic congestion, increased risk of accidents, noise pollution and egress problems for Barbee Mill Homeowners. i. 2000 additional cars/day will translate into 700 to 800 ft of traffic jams along Lake Washington Blvd, 43rd and Ripley Lane. The current infrastructure can in no way handle this increased volume. Lake Washington Blvd. is a narrow, 2-lane, scenic, curving, hilly, 25 mph road with bike lanes in both margins and many residential driveways. It is already extremely difficult to navigate Lake Washington Blvd given the present volume of traffic. Furthermore, it is already difficult with the present volume of traffic to enter or exit the Barbee Mill development at 43rd or 41st during the peak traffic hours and/or on sunny summer days from Lake Washington Blvd. Lake Washington Blvd does not have the capacity to handle the 2000/day proposed additional cars (3400+ if you factor in Hawk’s Landing). And, any serious infrastructure modifications to Lake Washington Blvd would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhoods, the environmentally sensitive May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline. 1. As a demonstration, one need to look no further than the congestion, parking and traffic nightmare that was created on 1/14/11 when hundreds of Seahawk Fans (including children and pets) and their vehicles descended on the intersection of Ripley Lane and Lake Washington Blvd. Cars were parked all over 43rd, 44th, Lake Washington & Ripley Lane. It made it nearly impossible to enter/exit Barbee Mill on 43rd. Fans also jammed the 30th Bridge and surrounding Kennydale neighborhoods, which has been proposed as an alternate travel route for the Quendall Property. 2. As a demonstration, congestion is also extremely heavy when during the Seahawk Training Days in August, despite the fact that the Seahawks arrange for buses and parking in the Landing in their effort to mitigate what would be the adverse impact of an approximate 2000 cars per day from coming into and parking in the neighborhoods adjacent to Ripley Lane including Barbee Mill. 3. We do not understand why the proposal does not bring traffic directly into the center of the Quendall property via a new access road which would need to be built to cross Ripley Lane and that would be more capable of handling that volume of traffic. However, we are not sure that any development plan that calls for 2000 or more additional cars/day on area roads can be adequately addressed through existing, modified or new infrastructure. 4. The details of the traffic analysis for Lake Washington Blvd at 43rd have been left out of (Table 3.9-1) AND there is no mention in the proposal of improving 43rd. ii. We are concerned that frustrated motorists who are eager to avoid the traffic congestion on Lake Washington Blvd will either make Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 5 dangerous u-turns and/or choose to use Barbee Mill as a major arterial north/south bypass route for Lake Washington Blvd. The streets within Barbee Mill can in no way accommodate this increased traffic volume. This bypass traffic would present a tremendous risk and inconvenience for Barbee Mill residents. It would hamper ability to safely enter and exit our own neighborhood and residences. The added traffic on Barbee Mill’s streets would create a public safety risks for residents as well as for area pedestrians, joggers, cyclists, children in strollers and pets that enjoy our streets. We are extremely concerned about the added danger of so many motorists trying to navigate the already hazardous blind curve at 42nd (just shortly after you turn into Barbee Mill from 43rd). The bypass traffic would also generate significant noise pollution. We believe that this proposal and its traffic volume will not only impact Barbee Mill homeowner and community safety but that it will adversely impact and reduce property values and quality of life for Barbee Mill homeowners. d. Traffic on I-405 at 44th and 30th is already one of the most frequently congested parts of the freeway in both the North and South lanes. Congestion occurs not only at peak traffic hours but throughout the majority of the day. The freeway, just as the neighboring roads, can in no way accommodate an additional influx of 2000 cars per day. Throughout the proposal, the applicant has stated that various traffic impacts could be mitigated through a coordinated effort with WSDOT. However, WSDOT went on record during the DEIS Scoping Summary stating that “the potential I-405/NE 44 St interchange improvements project is not funded, and is not likely to be funded in the foreseeable future; the transportation analysis should not assume that this project is complete or will occur.” (Pg 5-EIS Scoping Summary) We believe that approving a major Quendall development plan without WSDOT commitment, funding, schedule and a plan in place to improve this interchange would have irreversible consequences and would cause a tremendous number of adverse impacts. i. There are scenarios in the proposal that suggest using the I-405 30th street onramp/offramp (exit 6) and then routing cars through the hilly, residential neighborhoods in Kennydale along 30th, 40th, Burnett and Park. This is not a realistic alternative and is equally as dangerous as cars choosing to use Barbee Mill as a shortcut. And it could encourage drivers travelling northbound and southbound on Lake Washington Blvd to take a shortcut through Barbee Mill. e. Transportation—The proposal does not include any plans to develop, improve or encourage public transit in the vicinity. This means that there would be no alternative form of transportation for the estimated 2000+ daily visitors and tenants. It is not an environmentally responsible transportation design solution to place 2000 additional cars onto neighborhood streets and the lakefront in this residential community without providing realistic transportation alternatives. i. In the Mayor’s 2010 State of the City Address, he declared “I believe that it is vital that we have the right infrastructure in place now to serve the needs of our future. We will continue to work with Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 6 the state and regional transportation organizations to make critical investments to create an affective transportation system that allows goods and people to move efficiently.” The Quendall proposal does not provide for any investments to create an affective transportation solution in the area NOR does it put the right infrastructure in place to serve the needs of the immediate area and alleviate traffic and noise and air pollution impacts and public safety risks. f. Parking—In the Proposal Alternative 2, there are surface level parking lots for 220 cars up placed right up against the entire north property line for Barbee Mill. This is in no way consistent with land use compatibility in the neighborhood and will adversely impact property values and quality of life. Nor is Proposal Alternative 1, which calls for a 6-story building to be placed right up against the north fence of Barbee Mill. We believe that it is not an acceptable plan to place parking lots, tall buildings and/or delivery entrances right up against the north Barbee Mill fence. i. We are concerned that if fees are charged for parking in the Quendall development, that visitors and tenants will seek out free parking in the adjacent neighborhood streets especially at Barbee Mill—which already suffers from insufficient street parking for residents and guests. 4) Public Safety Impact a. Cyclist Safety/Pedestrian/Runners Safety—Lake Washington Blvd was never meant to be a major thoroughfare. It is a hilly, scenic route through residential neighborhoods. It has no sidewalks and is very poorly lit at night. In fact, it is already quite dangerous on winter nights to turn into the Barbee Mill development at either 43rd or 44th St as there are no streetlights at either intersection. Lake Washington Blvd (in addition to Barbee Mill streets) is currently used not only by vehicles but also by pedestrians walking their pets and children, joggers and bicyclists. Given that there are no sidewalks and poor lighting along the road, such an increase in cars would not only cause traffic gridlock and backups but would also present a tremendous safety hazard to all using the bike lanes and shoulders for purposes other than driving. i. As a demonstration, a Barbee Mill resident counted more than 140 cyclists using Lake Washington Blvd and crossing 43rd St in a 90- minute period on a recent summer Saturday morning. b. We are concerned that the proposed public access trail and above ground parking lots located right against Barbee Mill North fence would invite evening transient traffic and loitering that could lead to crime. This fence backs up against an existing quiet residential neighborhood. This would not only adversely impact quality of life for Barbee Mill residents but also reduce property values. c. We are concerned that the proposed traffic volume and insufficient infrastructure, would affect the ability of emergency vehicles and first responders to quickly access the Barbee Mill community (and Ripley Lane neighborhood) in the event of an emergency. This puts the lives and health of residents at risk. d. We are concerned that a newly accessible open public space, trails, and parking lots may become an attractive target to a criminal element and would bring an increase risk of crime, vandalism, gang activity, graffiti, Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 7 noise, and other negative and unwanted activity that would put neighborhood homeowners’ safety and security at risk. 5) Light, Glare & Noise Impact a. We have tremendous concern over the amount light and glare that would be emitted from the proposed high-density residential buildings (proposed to be as high as 90ft) and the evening and night-time restaurant patrons and shoppers in the retail development. We also are concerned about the noise pollution that would come from delivery trucks, giant HVAC units, 2000+ cars/day and ensuing traffic, residential tenants, office workers, retail shoppers and potential bar/restaurant patrons. The light, glare and noise from the proposed Quendall development would adversely impact quality of life and property values for the residents and homeowners of Barbee Mill. 6) Environmental Impact a. The true baseline character of the Quendall property is unknown until the EPA mandated remedial action is fully specified and completed. We believe that the DEIS proposes prematurely, approval of a BINDING site plan for specifications of square feet of various building types, number of parking spaces, roads, traffic and egress to and from the development. Approving the BINDING plan PRIOR TO completed the mandated remedial clean up of the Superfund sight is not only unwise and imprudent but the long term consequences and negative impacts are just too great. As homeowners, this is not the legacy we want to have to live with nor is what we want for our health, our quality of life and our property values. b. Mayor Law declared in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Clean, healthy air; high quality drinking water; and trails and green open spaces are key to keeping our city a great place to live and work. Expanding our tree canopy, creating a better trail system, and protecting our environment provides many benefits to the city and boosts property values by making neighborhoods greener.” Unfortunately, the current proposal for Quendall runs completely contrary to the Mayor’s pledge. c. Superfund Site Carcinogens & The Impact on The Environment—The The EPA has tremendous concerns about the carcinogenic substances on the Quendall site, cleanup and the adverse impact the cleanup would have on the Lake, including fishing and swimming and on several species. We share this concern. (EPA ID# WAD980639215). i. They state: “The primary contaminants of concern are carcinogenic PAHs and benzene. These contaminants are found in the soil and ground water throughout the site. These compounds are found at concentrations well above State cleanup levels for residential and industrial sites. At some locations on the site, creosote product has been found under the surface. In some areas the product is four to six feet thick. Releases of these contaminants to Lake Washington are of particular concern. Lake Washington is used for a variety of recreational purposes including fishing and swimming. The southern end of Lake Washington, including the area where the site is located, is considered prime habitat for rearing of juvenile Chinook, which is a Federal Threatened Species, and other salmon stocks. The Cedar River, which enters Lake Washington approximately two Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 8 miles from the site, supports the largest sockeye run in the contiguous United States. Lake Washington also supports several sensitive environments including habitat for bull trout and the bald eagle. In addition, there are two swimming beaches located within one half mile of the site.” As homeowners at Barbee Mill, we enjoy having access to the shoreline in our development and do not want to see it adversely impacted by release of contaminates nor do we want to put the health of our families at risk. d. We understand that the EPA has jurisdiction over the remediation and cleanup of the Superfund Site at Quendall Terminals. We are extremely concerned about what carcinogenic contaminants will be released into the air and water (through either surface or aquifer transfer) and into our neighborhoods and into our shoreline and May Creek as a result of the initial cleanup process. We are also extremely concerned the adverse impact that the proposed mitigation, landfilling, grading, piling driving and other redevelopment activities will have on our neighborhoods and our residents. Furthermore, the DEIS proposes no dust control measures during the construction process to minimize contaminant transportation to Barbee Mill Homes. We believe strongly that it is NOT PRUDENT OR RESPONSIBLE to approve any BINDING redevelopment proposal for this site until the remediation and cleanup of this critical Superfund site has been thoroughly planned and safely planned, executed and effectively completed by the EPA. To expedite the redevelopment process in order to pursue redevelopment income, puts at risk and adversely affects the health and lives of the immediate neighborhood residents, users of Lake Washington and the existing wildlife. Pursuing binding development agreements BEFORE Superfund cleanup, would be an extremely poor decision with a tremendously risky outcome. e. Wetlands— The overall wetlands in the Quendall property are at least twice the size they are portrayed as in the EIS. In particular in the Southwest corner (a small blue dot labeled “H”) is nearly an acre in total size, which is 50-times the size of what is portrayed in the DEIS. i. The Wetland buffer area for shoreline wetlands should remain at a minimum of 50 ft and should not be reduced for shoreline trails or buildings as currently proposed and shown on figure 2-7. ii. Substituting Wetland “I” or “J”, which is nothing more than a drainage ditch, (per figure 2.6, 2.7 and 2.11) which are separated by Ripley Lane & the railroad tracks and have absolutely no continuity with the Quendall site are not adequate or appropriate solutions for mitigating onsite wetlands throughout the Quendall site including adjacent to Barbee Mill. f. Wildlife—The EIS makes no mention of existing wildlife or mitigation for their loss of habitat from the proposed construction. There are ospreys, eagles, herons, deer, hummingbirds, and other species living in the wetlands and natural habitat of the Quendall property. CONCLUSIONS 1) We recommend that the City does NOT PROCEED with the current BINDING proposal as outlined in the Draft EIS. Of the three alternatives proposed, we believe that the ONLY viable alternative is that of “NO ACTION.” Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 9 2) We certainly hope that Mayor Law meant what he pledged in his 2010 State of The City address when he stated: “By engaging citizens to participate in the process we are starting to create a picture of a city that is a leader in growth management.” a. Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, City Planners and Hearing Examiner, as citizens of Renton we are participating in the DEIS public hearing process and we are loudly saying that the proposals outlined in the DEIS for the Quendall Terminal Redevelopment are in no way in alignment with that goal of responsible growth management and would have tremendous adverse impacts on the surrounding community. 3) Mayor Law also concluded his 2010 State of the City address with these words: “I am optimistic about the future. I am optimistic because people in our community are willing to step up and do what is necessary; because it is through partnerships that we tackle tough issues; and because we never quit planning for the future of this great community.” a. So here we are, the people of Renton stepping up and tackling the tough issues of a poorly thought out, extremely inappropriate and binding DEIS proposal that is completely out of character with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. IF approved and developed, the proposed Quendall development would be a devastating destruction to the shoreline of Lake Washington and to the surrounding community. This proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Property is definitely NOT what we want to see in the future of our great community. 4) We believe that this proposal would have a tremendously adverse impact on the existing adjacent neighborhoods especially our Barbee Mill community. The proposed Quendall development would negatively impact and affect traffic, public safety, quality of life and property values in Barbee Mill and surrounding neighborhoods. 5) As homeowners, taxpayers and citizens of the City of Renton, we urge the City of Renton to NOT approve this binding proposal for the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Proposal. The only one of its alternatives that is viable is that of “NO ACTION!” Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-233 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 26 Christine Chen 1. See the response to Comment 1 in DEIS Letter 12. 2. See the response to Comment 2 in DEIS Letter 12. 3. See the response to Comment 3 in DEIS Letter 12. 4. See the response to Comment 4 in DEIS Letter 12. 5. See the response to Comment 5 in DEIS Letter 12. 6. See the response to Comment 6 in DEIS Letter 12. 7. See the response to Comment 7 in DEIS Letter 12. 8. See the response to Comment 8 in DEIS Letter 12. 9. See the response to Comment 9 in DEIS Letter 12. 10. See the response to Comment 10 in DEIS Letter 12. 11. See the response to Comment 11 in DEIS Letter 12. 12. See the response to Comment 12 in DEIS Letter 12. 13. See the response to Comment 13 in DEIS Letter 12. 14. See the response to Comment 14 in DEIS Letter 12. 15. See the response to Comment 15 in DEIS Letter 12. 16. See the response to Comment 16 in DEIS Letter 12. 17. See the response to Comment 17 in DEIS Letter 12. 18. See the response to Comment 18 in DEIS Letter 12. 19. See the response to Comment 19 in DEIS Letter 12. 20. See the response to Comment 20 in DEIS Letter 12. 21. See the response to Comment 21 in DEIS Letter 12. 22. See the response to Comment 22 in DEIS Letter 12. 23. See the response to Comment 23 in DEIS Letter 12. 24. See the response to Comment 24 in DEIS Letter 12. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-234 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 25. See the response to Comment 25 in DEIS Letter 12. 26. See the response to Comment 26 in DEIS Letter 12. 27. See the response to Comment 27 in DEIS Letter 12. 28. See the response to Comment 28 in DEIS Letter 12. 29. See the response to Comment 29 in DEIS Letter 12. 30. See the response to Comment 30 in DEIS Letter 12. 31. See the response to Comment 31 in DEIS Letter 12. 32. See the response to Comment 32 in DEIS Letter 12. 33. See the response to Comment 33 in DEIS Letter 12. 34. See the response to Comment 34 in DEIS Letter 12. 35. See the response to Comment 35 in DEIS Letter 12. 36. See the response to Comment 36 in DEIS Letter 12. 37. See the response to Comment 37 in DEIS Letter 12. 38. See the response to Comment 38 in DEIS Letter 12. 39. See the response to Comment 39 in DEIS Letter 12. 40. See the response to Comment 40 in DEIS Letter 12. 41. See the response to Comment 41 in DEIS Letter 12. 42. See the response to Comment 42 in DEIS Letter 12. 43. See the response to Comment 43 in DEIS Letter 12 44. See the response to Comment 44 in DEIS Letter 12. 45. See the response to Comment 45 in DEIS Letter 12. 46. See the response to Comment 46 in DEIS Letter 12. 47. See the response to Comment 47 in DEIS Letter 12. 48. See the response to Comment 48 in DEIS Letter 12. 49. See the response to Comment 49 in DEIS Letter 12. 50. See the response to Comment 50 in DEIS Letter 12. From: Victor Chiu [mailto:vchiu74@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 12:14 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Quendall Terminal Draft EIS (LUA09-151) Dear Ms. Dolbee, as a resident and homeowner in the Barbee Mill community, I strongly oppose the proposed Quendall Terminal project as currently submitted. I have attached a list of comments drafted by members of our community, and I certainly echo their sentiments. I am especially concerned about the potential impact of the increased traffic into this predominantly residential area. I have often observed police officers patrolling Lake Washington Boulevard in an effort to enforce the speed limit. With the increase in traffic volume that comes with the Quendall Terminal project, you can imagine the adverse impact it will have on the surrounding communities. In addition to the increased traffic, I am also concerned about the potential for increased crime that will inevitably follow such a large commercial project, and the effects it would have on property values in the surrounding neighborhoods. I appreciate your time and hope the city will NOT approve the Quendall Terminal project. Should you have any questions regarding the above, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Victor Chiu, Homeowner Barbee Mill 1128 N. 41st Place Renton, WA 98056 (626) 627-1059 vchiu74@hotmail.com Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-236 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 27 Victor Chiu 1. Your comments are noted for the record. 2. Mitigation measures have been identified to address potential transportation impacts that could result with redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative. With implementation of these measures, traffic facilities within the area would operate within accepted standards, with or without future WSDOT I-405 Improvements. As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures. The mitigation measures include: roadway widening, intersection channelization, traffic control treatments, non-motorized improvements, traffic management measures, public transportation opportunities, traffic impact fee requirements, and on-site parking management techniques. See FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of these mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. As indicated in the EIS Addendum, there are no significant transportation-related impacts that cannot be mitigated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page 2-1) for details. Subsequent to the issuance of the EIS Addendum, the City of Renton conducted a review in 2014 of cumulative transportation impacts along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor, including the Quendall Terminals Project and five other known pipeline projects (City of Renton Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton, October 2014). The review concluded that project-specific mitigation without I-405 improvements for Quendall Terminals would be adequate in the near-term and the relocation of the future signalized access into the site from Ripley Lane to N 43rd Street should be considered. As a result, mitigation measures for the Quendall Terminals Project have been modified in this FEIS to allow the City, WSDOT, the applicant and other adjacent property owners to further consider this potential relocation in future design of the interchange system (see FEIS Appendix C for details and FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures with the Preferred Alternative). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 3. Your comment is noted for the record. The proposed multifamily housing and commercial redevelopment could increase the amount of crime in the area due to the associated increase in residents, employees, and customers. However, this development would not necessarily increase the crime rate in the area. A number of features would be incorporated into the project to reduce the potential for crime, including adequate lighting, building identification, and vehicular circulation. As a result, the project is not expected to result in significant impacts on public safety. Per WAC 197-11-448(3), an EIS is not required to discuss economic factors and the fiscal aspects of a project. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-238 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 28 Michael Christ 1. Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS, a Preferred Alternative was developed by the applicant and analyzed in the EIS Addendum. The EIS Addendum provided an updated transportation analysis of the Preferred Alternative and responded to comments on the DEIS. The updated analysis included a LOS analysis of the Lake Washington Boulevard/Park Avenue/Garden Avenue intersection that accounted for planned improvements at that intersection (see EIS Addendum Section 3.4 and Appendix E for details). 2. Please see the response to Comment 1 in this letter. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-240 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 29 Ronald Corbell 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. Your comment is noted for the record. From: jonjdan@aol.com [mailto:jonjdan@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 4:56 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Quendall Terminals Proposal - LUA09-151 February 9, 2011 Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Quendall Terminals Draft EIS (LUA09-151) Dear Ms. Dolbee: We have had the opportunity to review the submitted documents. Specifically we take note of Section 3.6 Relationship to Plans, Policies and Regulations. In the Community Design Element, it speaks to: Goal 1- To raise the aesthetic quality of the City. Goal 2- To strengthen the economy through high quality development. Goal 3 – To ensure that a high quality of life is maintained as Renton evolves. As an architect my personal opinion is that this project does not meet the above stated elements. This development appears to be of marginal aesthetic qualities, would only strengthen the economy by taxes – not “High Quality Development,” and by no means would “ensure that a high quality of life is maintained as Renton evolves.” These comments made in the document are a great leap of rhetoric and are certainly exhibited in what is presented. Further, the comments made about: Policy CD-3 – Site Design should maximize public access to and create opportunities for use of shoreline areas in locations contiguous to the lake, river, stream or wetland where such access would not jeopardize habitats and other environmental attributes of the water body. Policy CE-4 – Development review of proposed projects should identify opportunities for increasing public access to Lake Washington, the Cedar River, wetlands, streams and creeks in the City. Clearly the design as presented in the DEIS does not “maximize public access,” in fact it is our belief that this design RESTRICTS PUBLIC ACCESS. Again it is noted that just “stating something” does not make it so. This development would be an “eye sore” and “intrusive” blight on the shoes of Lake Washington. The impact of traffic on the local streets would be immense! This project is far too imposing on our Lakefront and would create a WALL shutting off the views of the lake. Our impression is that this proposal is FAR TOO EXTENSIVE AND INTRUSIVE to be part of a development supported by the City of Renton for its citizens. We also believe that the proposed current remediation of the contaminated soil is not going to provide for adequate protection for the citizens exposed to the site. We do not want to create an extensive list, item by item that is wrong, but we want to go on record as saying we oppose the proposed development as identified by Options 1 and 2. At this particular time we would support Option 3. We will certainly be keeping aware of the continued progress of the proposal at future presentations. We need more parks and space available to us. We also do not need more and bigger developments similar to the apartments that have been constructed in The Landing, that is certainly not a “high quality development” and not at capacity in occupancy. Most Sincerely, Jon & Marilyn Danielson 1308 N. 34th St. Renton, WA 98056 425-228-7933 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-243 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 30 Jon and Marilyn Danielson 1. Your comments are noted for the record. Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS, a Preferred Alternative was developed by the applicant to respond to comments received on the DEIS, and continued coordination with and input from EPA and the City. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes modification to enhance the compatibility of the proposed redevelopment with surrounding uses (i.e., reduction of overall development level, modulation of building heights across the site, modification in building materials, and addition of landscaping). Architectural features (i.e., roof slope, façade modulation, building materials, etc.) shall be incorporated into the design of each building and are intended to enhance the compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding uses. See EIS Addendum Figures 2-4 and 2-5 for elevations of the Preferred Alternative and Figures 2-8 and 2-9 for conceptual renderings of the Preferred Alternative. 2. The Preferred Alternative would include approximately 10.6 acres of “Natural Open Space Areas” and “Other Related Areas”. Of this area, approximately 3.7 acres would be “Natural Public Open Space Area” including a trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area (if authorized by EPA’s Record of Decision [ROD] or any Natural Resource Damages [NRD] settlement) and natural areas. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail would be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings, and could be combined with the fire access road. Approximately 6.9 acres of “Other Related Areas” would be provided, including landscaping and sidewalks located throughout the site that would provide a connection between the trail and Lake Washington Boulevard and other areas beyond the site (including the May Creek Parkway and a future connection to Cougar Mountain). The “Other Related Areas” may or may not meet the City’s standards, regulations, and procedures for open space. Approximately 1.8 acres of indoor and/or outdoor area would be provided onsite for active recreation (i.e., Frisbee, swimming pools, tot lots, bocce ball courts, exercise rooms, active recreation in courtyards, etc.), as approved by the City’s responsible public official. Public parking would also be provided as required by the Renton Municipal Code and the Shoreline Master Program, and would be identified as public by signage or other means approved by the City (see FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including parks and recreation-related mitigation measures). 3. Your comment is noted for the record. To enhance views through the site towards Lake Washington, the proposed view corridors have been expanded under the Preferred Alternative. As described in the EIS Addendum (Section 3.2 and 4.6), the proposed view corridor along Street “B” would be approximately 8 feet wider under the Preferred Alternative than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 to provide further views through the site. The view corridor along the southern property line would also be maximized to the extent feasible and proposed building modulation would increase view opportunities as well. 4. As part of the cleanup/remediation process, EPA will ensure that contaminants that are present in site soils and groundwater from past industrial operations will not be released Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-244 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments into the air and water during or following site cleanup/remediation. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Environmental Health – page 2-19) for details. A new mitigation measure has been added to this FEIS indicating that the EPA cleanup/remediation process for the site and associated institutional control requirements will ensure that unacceptable exposures to contaminated soils/dust and vapors will not occur during or following construction. An Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) will be implemented to prevent the excavation of soils, installation of utilities, and other site disturbances without prior EPA approval (see Construction Impacts mitigation measure J2 in FEIS Chapter 1). 5. Your comment is noted for the record. 6. Your comment is noted for the record. Under the Preferred Alternative, approximately 10.6 acres of “Natural Open Space Areas” and “Other Related Areas” would be provided on the site, including approximately 3.7 acres of “Natural Public Open Space Areas” and approximately 6.9 acres of “Other Related Areas”. Approximately 1.8 acres of indoor and/or outdoor area would be provided onsite for active recreation, as approved by the City’s responsible public official. A parks mitigation/impact fee would also be paid for each multifamily unit in the development at the time of building permit issuance and in accordance with the City of Renton Municipal Code (see FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including parks and recreation-related mitigation measures). From: nancydenney@comcast.net [mailto:nancydenney@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 9:32 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Quendall Terminals Venessa Dolbee Renton Department of Community and Economic Development I saw a brief review of the Quendall project this week in the Renton Reporter and I can't believe anyone would propose putting six or seven story buildings on the lake shore. And 800 housing units, plus 245,000 square feet of office space, and a restaurant and retail space? I live on Lake Washington Boulevard just to the south of this land and this is, and should certainly remain, a residential area, not an office and commercial area. It has also been my impression that the site is heavily contaminated and I really am concerned about someone going in there and stirring all that up. Particularly someone who is only really interested in building for their own benefit and not the communities. Also, very high on my list of concerns would be the added traffic. The 44th street interchange of 405 is already getting very busy and crowded and the idea of adding 800 more housing units without any real street changes sounds like a recipe for nothing but an even bigger mess. But again, what I think bothers me most is the size of the project, the number of units and the heights. It just doesn't fit with the neighborhood and it seems a slap in the face of everyone who does live here to pretend that it does. I would hope you will turn down this project and tell developers to come back to the table with a project that shows some real concern for our neighborhood. Thank you Nancy Denney 3818 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton, Wa. 98056 425-226-7987 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-246 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 31 Nancy Denney 1. Your comment is noted for the record. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in the 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s large scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single family building. With the implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 2. As part of the cleanup/remediation process, EPA will ensure that contaminants that are present in site soils and groundwater from past industrial operations will not be released into the air and water during or following site cleanup/remediation. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Environmental Health – page 2-19) for details. A new mitigation measure has been added to this FEIS indicating that the EPA cleanup/remediation process for the site and associated institutional control requirements will ensure that unacceptable exposures to contaminated soils/dust and vapors will not occur during or following construction. An Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) will be implemented to prevent the excavation of soils, installation of utilities, and other site disturbances without prior EPA approval (see Construction Impacts mitigation measure J2 in FEIS Chapter 1). 3. Mitigation measures have been identified to address potential transportation impacts that could result with redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative. As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures, and traffic facilities within the area would operate within accepted standards, with or without future WSDOT I-405 Improvements. The project mitigation measures include: roadway widening, intersection channelization, traffic control treatments, non-motorized improvements, traffic management measures, public transportation opportunities, traffic impact fee requirements, and on-site parking management techniques. See FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of these mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. As indicated in the EIS Addendum, there are no significant transportation-related impacts that cannot be mitigated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page 2-1) for details. In addition, in 2014 the City of Renton conducted a review of cumulative transportation impacts along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor, including the Quendall Terminals Project and five other known pipeline projects (City of Renton Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton, October 2014). The review concluded that project- Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-247 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments specific mitigation without I-405 improvements for Quendall Terminals would be adequate in the near-term and the relocation of the future signalized access into the site from Ripley Lane to N 43rd Street should be considered. As a result, mitigation measures for the Quendall Terminals Project have been modified in this FEIS to allow the City, WSDOT, the applicant and other adjacent property owners to further consider this potential relocation in future design of the interchange system (see FEIS Appendix C for details and FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures with the Preferred Alternative). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 4. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 1 in this letter and FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24). 5. Your comment is noted for the record. From: elisabeth durr [mailto:elisabethdurr@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 11:04 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Quendall Terminals, I challenge the proposal My husband and I are homeowners in the Clover Creek neighborhood in Kennydale. We bought our very first home in Kennydale in 1975 on 36th St. We ended up moving after two years because the house was too small for our growing family. We lived for 25 years in a different neighbourhood and when we felt it was time to move, the first place we looked was Kennydale. We were very happy to find a home on N 27th Pl. and moved in in November of 2002. We are delighted to be back. Our son and his wife moved from Belltown to Kennydale in 2004 and now live on N 35th St. and love the neighbourhood as much as we do. I am not against the development of the Quendall Terminals site but I challenge the proposal because of my fears of what it would do to our neighbourhood in terms of traffic. It's tough as it is at rush hour to get onto I405 in the morning. I would like to see more work done to accomodate the traffic. Also, I am concerned that the buildings proposed will be a bit too much for that particular site to accomodate in a fashion that compliments rather than disrupts the surrounding areas. Sincerely, Elisabeth Durr 1206 N 27th Pl Renton, Wa 98056 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-249 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 32 Elisabeth Durr 1. Your comment is noted for the record. Mitigation measures have been identified to address potential transportation impacts that could result with redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative. As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures, and traffic facilities within the area would operate within accepted standards, with or without future WSDOT I-405 Improvements. The mitigation measures include: roadway widening, intersection channelization, traffic control treatments, non-motorized improvements, traffic management measures, public transportation opportunities, traffic impact fee requirements, and on-site parking management techniques. See FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. As indicated in the EIS Addendum, there are no significant transportation-related impacts that cannot be mitigated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page 2-1) for details. In addition, in 2014 the City of Renton conducted a review of cumulative transportation impacts along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor, including the Quendall Terminals Project and five other known pipeline projects (City of Renton Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton, October 2014). The review concluded that project specific mitigation without I-405 improvements for Quendall Terminals would be adequate in the near-term and the relocation of the future signalized access into the site from Ripley Lane to N 43rd Street should be considered. As a result, mitigation measures for the Quendall Terminals Project have been modified in this FEIS to allow the City, WSDOT, the applicant and other adjacent property owners to further consider this potential relocation in future design of the interchange system (see FEIS Appendix C for details and FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures with the Preferred Alternative). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 2. Please see the response to Comment 1 in this letter. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s large scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family buildings. With the implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-250 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24 for details and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-253 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 33 Richard Ferry 1. Your comment is noted for the record. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the vicinity (i.e., in 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s large scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family residences. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 2. Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative to respond to comments received on the DEIS, and continued coordination with and input from EPA and the City. The Preferred Alternative was analyzed in the EIS Addendum and included several modifications to enhance the visual character of the proposed development. Architectural features (i.e., roof slope, façade modulation, building materials, etc.) shall be incorporated into the design of each building and are intended to enhance the compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding uses. Updated visual simulations were also prepared for the EIS Addendum to reflect the modifications made under the Preferred Alternative (see EIS Addendum Section 3.2). Light and Glare impacts were also analyzed for the Preferred Alternative in the EIS Addendum (Section 4.6) and mitigation measures identified to minimize light and glare impacts, including directing exterior building lighting, parking lot lighting, and pedestrian lighting downward to reduce impacts to surrounding uses and the shoreline of Lake Washington. Please see FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Aesthetics/Views – page 2-27and Light and Glare – page 2-31) for details, and Aesthetics mitigation measures F7 and F13 in FEIS Chapter 1. 3. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 2 in this letter and FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Aesthetics/Views – page 2-27 and Light and Glare – page 2-31), and Aesthetics mitigation measures F7 and F13 in FEIS Chapter 1. 4. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 2 in this letter regarding the Preferred Alternative and mitigation measures to enhance views. 5. Your comment is noted for the record. 6. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 1 in this letter and FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-254 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments for details on the proposed project’s height, bulk and scale, and its compatibility with surrounding development. Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 1 Date: To: City of Renton Planning Department Attn: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7314 vdolbee@rentonwa.gov From: Name: Roy & Joann Francis Address:1000 N 42nd Pl Phone Number:(425) 227-7108 Email Address:royfrancis@msn.com Subject: Public Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal Draft EIS (LUA09-151) Following are our comments regarding the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal site as outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). As homeowners, tax payers and citizens of the City of Renton, I believe that the proposed and binding Quendall development proposal has tremendous negative and adverse impacts to the environment, property, the neighborhood and our Barbee Mill community and should NOT be approved. 1) Size & Scale Impact a. Scale—The proposed scale, density and height of the buildings in both alternatives are completely out-of-scale, incompatible and inconsistent with all neighborhoods on the entire shoreline of Lake Washington. The typical height limit for buildings along the Lake is 35 ft. The proposed heights and densities exceed those of Downtown Kirkland, Carillon Point, Bellevue and Seattle’s Lake Washington facing neighborhoods. Furthermore, the proposed scale, density and height of the Quendall proposal are inconsistent and incompatible with adjacent neighborhoods, including the East facing shoreline of Mercer Island. It will completely dwarf the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. b. The proposed buildings would be more than 40 ft taller than the height of the Barbee Mill homes. And they would be more than double the height of all nearby residences! The proposed buildings are nearly 90 ft in height although they are marked as 77 ft on the applicants elevation drawings, which is 3/4 the height of the Seahawks/VMAC Facility and the Boeing Airplane Factory. Again this is completely out-of-scale with the Barbee Mill neighborhood and anything else along the Lake Washington shoreline. (DEIS 3.5-12) i. Figure 3.7-2 in the DEIS is an inaccurate and misleading rendering that attempts to conceal the height and visual impact of both proposal alternatives. c. The proposed architectural design resembles an industrial park and does not have the look or the feel of a residential neighborhood. It is certainly “not consistent with the existing urban character” (as claimed in DEIS 3.5- 12) of any of the immediate and nearby residential neighborhoods, including Barbee Mill. The proposed scale, density and character would Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 2 be an eyesore no matter what angle it is viewed from within the adjacent neighborhoods or from lakefront properties along Mercer. d. The proposed design looks more like the Landing, which is sandwiched in between a shopping center and the country’s second largest airplane factory and which is NOT located on the shores of one of the most beautiful lakes in the state and which is NOT located in the middle of an existing residential area. e. The Applicant claims that this area along the Lake Washington shoreline is currently a high-density urban environment. (DEIS 3.5-12) This statement is misleading and couldn’t be farther from the truth as all neighboring areas are completely residential (with the exception of the Seahawks facility.) f. The proposed designs and project scope, scale and density are inappropriate for the shoreline of Lake Washington and do not in any way take advantage of the Lake front location and view. The buildings face each other instead of the Lake. The primary lake view outlook and central lakefront architectural feature is a semi-circular parking lot. i. The Mayor stated in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Renton still has some amazing waterfront property on Lake Washington.” We couldn’t agree more. However, this proposal in no way takes advantage of or capitalizes on this amazing piece of waterfront property. In fact, the proposal looks like the City of Renton has taken a giant step backwards by proposing a self- facing vs. lake facing, residential complex, retail and office park with limited green space and tree canopy. This is not responsible growth. Nor is it responsible stewardship and development of the largest piece of remaining undeveloped land along the shoreline of beautiful Lake Washington. ii. The proposal calls for a straight, walled, 2-story parking garage, approximately 1000 ft in length, to traverse the entire Lake Washington frontage of the Quendall development with absolutely no undulation. There is nothing in the architectural design to break up the negative, visual impact of this two-story wall facing the Lake. The scale of this lake-facing 2-story garage wall is unheard of in residential zoning and lakefront zoning and does not fit the character nor complement the adjacent neighborhoods. g. The proposed development does NOT complement or add value to the existing neighborhoods especially neighboring Barbee Mill. Instead, this development would be tremendously destructive to the property value for the surrounding neighborhoods (including Barbee Mill, Kennydale, Newcastle and the East-facing side of Mercer Island) and detrimental to the quality of life for residents. 2) Density Impact a. This proposal repeatedly and misleadingly (DEIS 3.9-1) describes the Quendall development as “compatible with the existing neighborhoods.” This is preposterous and we strongly disagree. For example, Barbee Mill to the south has a planned density of 5 residential units per acre and contains no commercial (office or retail) space. The Quendall proposal is for 37 residential units per acre plus up to a ¼ million square feet of commercial space that would accommodate up to 2000 daily visitors. This is approximately 7 times the density of the local residential areas Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 3 and is in no way “consistent with the existing urban character of the area.” In fact, the existing character of the local area can only accurately be described as residential. Both proposal alternatives present tremendous compatibility impacts with the surrounding neighborhoods. b. Commercial/residential buildings in Renton and in the greater Eastside area, have tended to have a history of high-turnover, high-vacancy and have not proven to be particularly commercially viable. Our concern is that tenants of apartments and commercial space will have no vested interest in the neighborhood, the community or in the future vision for the city of Renton. And that such a development, could wind up sitting vacant for many years to come. 3) Traffic, Transportation & Parking Impact a. The traffic impact assessment in the DEIS is completely unrealistic. To begin with, the analysis in the DEIS does not take into account the traffic study and analysis for the adjacent Hawk’s Landing (Pan Abode) development, which estimated an additional 1400+ automotive trips a day flowing onto Lake Washington Blvd and adding to traffic congestion on the surrounding streets and I-405 exit 7 on-ramps and off-ramps. i. Before this or any other area development proposal is approved, a new, comprehensive traffic analysis should be done that focuses on the combined traffic impact of: Quendall Terminal property, Hawk’s Landing/Pan Abode property, Seakhawks/VMAC Facility, Ripley Lane neighborhood, Barbee Mill, Kennydale neighborhood, I-405 congestion, commuters trying to bypass 405 congestion on Lake Washington Blvd and the City’s goal of providing direct access to Lake Washington from Park Dr & Sunset Blvd. This comprehensive traffic analysis should reflect all existing, proposed and potential developments and their collective impact on the immediate vicinity and existing neighborhoods. WSDOT analysis, future plans and funding for I-405 must be factored into the traffic analysis and any infrastructure planning. (Reference: Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009) b. The proposal calls for an unacceptable increase in traffic with an estimated 2000 cars a day. Add to that, the estimated 1400 automotive trips a day from the proposed Hawks Landing development. The current infrastructure can in no way support the increases being proposed. There are no proposed plans to improve or widen the immediate roads or build the proper egress and ingress access roads to/from the proposed Quendall development. c. The proposal calls for N 43rd St to serve as the primary entrance to the Quendall property. This narrow, residential street is already the primary entrance for the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. This un-striped, 2-lane 135-ft long street, which has two stop signs and a railroad crossing, can in no way accommodate the proposed additional 2000 cars per day PLUS the cars of Barbee Mill residents. Given all this, it is shocking that the DEIS does NOT list NE 43rd St as a roadway condition concern. NE 43rd St is in no way sufficient to serve as the primary entrance for both Quendall and Barbee Mill; it cannot safely and effectively accommodate the additional influx of 2000 cars per day. This proposal will result in intolerable traffic congestion, increased risk of Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 4 accidents, noise pollution and egress problems for Barbee Mill Homeowners. i. 2000 additional cars/day will translate into 700 to 800 ft of traffic jams along Lake Washington Blvd, 43rd and Ripley Lane. The current infrastructure can in no way handle this increased volume. Lake Washington Blvd. is a narrow, 2-lane, scenic, curving, hilly, 25 mph road with bike lanes in both margins and many residential driveways. It is already extremely difficult to navigate Lake Washington Blvd given the present volume of traffic, especially when accidents on I-405 south of NE 44th diverts northbound traffic onto Lake Washington Blvd. Lake Washington Blvd does not have the capacity to handle the 2000/day proposed additional cars (3400+ if you factor in Hawk’s Landing). And, any serious infrastructure modifications to Lake Washington Blvd would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhoods, the environmentally sensitive May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline. 1. As a demonstration, one need to look no further than the congestion, parking and traffic nightmare that was created on 1/14/11 when hundreds of Seahawk Fans (including children and pets) and their vehicles descended on the intersection of Ripley Lane and Lake Washington Blvd. Cars were parked all over 43rd, 44th, Lake Washington & Ripley Lane. It made it nearly impossible to enter/exit Barbee Mill on 43rd. Fans also jammed the 30th Bridge and surrounding Kennydale neighborhoods, which has been proposed as an alternate travel route for the Quendall Property. 2. Congestion is also extremely heavy during the Seahawk Training Days in August, despite the fact that the Seahawks arrange for buses and parking in the Landing in their effort to mitigate what would be the adverse impact of approximately 2000 cars per day coming into and parking in the neighborhoods adjacent to Ripley Lane including Barbee Mill. 3. We do not understand why the proposal does not bring traffic directly into the center of the Quendall property via a new access road which would need to be built to cross Ripley Lane and that would be more capable of handling that volume of traffic. However, we are not sure that any development plan that calls for 2000 or more additional cars/day on area roads can be adequately addressed through existing, modified or new infrastructure. 4. The details of the traffic analysis for Lake Washington Blvd at NE 43rd have been left out of (Table 3.9-1) and there is no mention in the proposal of improving NE 43rd. ii. We are concerned that frustrated motorists who are eager to avoid the traffic congestion on Lake Washington Blvd will either make dangerous u-turns and/or choose to use Barbee Mill as a major arterial north/south bypass route for Lake Washington Blvd. The streets within Barbee Mill can in no way accommodate this Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 5 increased traffic volume. This bypass traffic would present a tremendous risk and inconvenience for Barbee Mill residents. It would hamper our ability to safely enter and exit our own neighborhood and residences. The added traffic on Barbee Mill’s streets would create public safety risks for residents as well as for area pedestrians, joggers, cyclists, children in strollers and pets that enjoy our streets. We are extremely concerned about the added danger of so many motorists trying to navigate the already hazardous blind curve at 42nd (just shortly after you turn into Barbee Mill from 43rd). The bypass traffic would also generate significant noise pollution. We believe that this proposal and its traffic volume will not only impact Barbee Mill homeowners and community safety but that it will adversely impact and reduce property values and quality of life for Barbee Mill homeowners. d. Traffic on I-405 at 44th and 30th is already one of the most frequently congested parts of the freeway in both the northbound and southbound lanes. Congestion occurs not only at peak traffic hours but throughout the majority of the day. The freeway, just as the neighboring roads, can in no way accommodate an additional influx of 2000 cars per day. Throughout the proposal, the applicant has stated that various traffic impacts could be mitigated through a coordinated effort with WSDOT. However, WSDOT went on record during the DEIS Scoping Summary stating that “the potential I-405/NE 44 St interchange improvements project is not funded, and is not likely to be funded in the foreseeable future; the transportation analysis should not assume that this project is complete or will occur.” (Pg 5-EIS Scoping Summary) We believe that approving a major Quendall development plan without WSDOT commitment, funding, schedule and a plan in place to improve this interchange would have irreversible consequences and would cause a tremendous number of adverse impacts. i. There are scenarios in the proposal that suggest using the I-405 30th street onramp/offramp (exit 6) and then routing cars through the hilly, residential neighborhoods in Kennydale along 30th, 40th, Burnett and Park. This is not a realistic alternative and is equally as dangerous as cars choosing to use Barbee Mill as a shortcut. And it could encourage drivers travelling northbound and southbound on Lake Washington Blvd to take a shortcut through Barbee Mill. e. Transportation—The proposal does not include any plans to develop, improve or encourage public transit in the vicinity. This means that there would be no alternative form of transportation for the estimated 2000+ daily visitors and tenants. It is not an environmentally responsible transportation design solution to place 2000 additional cars onto neighborhood streets and the lakefront in this residential community without providing realistic transportation alternatives. i. In the Mayor’s 2010 State of the City Address, he declared “I believe that it is vital that we have the right infrastructure in place now to serve the needs of our future. We will continue to work with the state and regional transportation organizations to make critical investments to create an effective transportation system that allows goods and people to move efficiently.” The Quendall Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 6 proposal does not provide for any investments to create an effective transportation solution in the area nor does it put the right infrastructure in place to serve the needs of the immediate area and alleviate traffic and noise and air pollution impacts and public safety risks. f. Parking—In the Proposal Alternative 2, there are surface level parking lots for 220 cars placed right up against the entire north property line for Barbee Mill. This is in no way consistent with land use compatibility in the neighborhood and will adversely impact property values and quality of life. Nor is Proposal Alternative 1, which calls for a 6-story building to be placed right up against the north fence of Barbee Mill. We believe that it is not an acceptable plan to place parking lots, tall buildings and/or delivery entrances right up against the north Barbee Mill fence. 4) Public Safety Impact a. Cyclist Safety/Pedestrians/Runners Safety—Lake Washington Blvd was never meant to be a major thoroughfare. It is a hilly, scenic route through residential neighborhoods. It has no sidewalks and is very poorly lit at night. In fact, it is already quite dangerous on winter nights to turn into the Barbee Mill development at either 43rd St or 41st St as there are no streetlights at either intersection. Lake Washington Blvd (in addition to Barbee Mill streets) is currently used not only by vehicles but also by pedestrians walking their pets and children, joggers and bicyclists. Given that there are no sidewalks and poor lighting along the road, such an increase in cars would not only cause traffic gridlock and backups but would also present a tremendous safety hazard to all using the bike lanes and shoulders for purposes other than driving. i. As a demonstration, a Barbee Mill resident counted more than 140 cyclists using Lake Washington Blvd and crossing 43rd St in a 90- minute period on a recent summer Saturday morning. b. We are concerned that the proposed public access trail and above ground parking lots located right against Barbee Mill north fence would invite evening transient traffic and loitering that could lead to crime. This fence backs up against an existing quiet residential neighborhood. This would not only adversely impact quality of life for Barbee Mill residents but also reduce property values. c. We are concerned that the proposed traffic volume and insufficient infrastructure, would affect the ability of emergency vehicles and first responders to quickly access the Barbee Mill community (and Ripley Lane neighborhood) in the event of an emergency. This puts the lives and health of residents at risk. 5) Light, Glare & Noise Impact a. We have tremendous concern over the amount of light and glare that would be emitted from the proposed high-density residential buildings (proposed to be as high as 90ft) and the evening and night-time restaurant patrons and shoppers in the retail development. We also are concerned about the noise pollution that would come from delivery trucks, giant HVAC units, 2000+ cars/day and ensuing traffic, residential tenants, office workers, retail shoppers and potential bar/restaurant patrons. The light, glare and noise from the proposed Quendall development would adversely impact quality of life and property values for the residents and homeowners of Barbee Mill. Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 7 6) Environmental Impact a. The true baseline character of the Quendall property is unknown until the EPA mandated remedial action is fully specified and completed. We believe that the DEIS proposes prematurely, approval of a binding site plan for specifications of square feet of various building types, number of parking spaces, roads, traffic and egress to and from the development. Approving the binding plan prior to completing the mandated remedial clean up of the Superfund sight is not only unwise and imprudent but the long term consequences and negative impacts are just too great. As homeowners, this is not the legacy we want to have to live with nor is it what we want for our health, our quality of life and our property values. b. Mayor Law declared in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Clean, healthy air, high quality drinking water, and trails and green open spaces are key to keeping our city a great place to live and work. Expanding our tree canopy, creating a better trail system, and protecting our environment provides many benefits to the city and boosts property values by making neighborhoods greener.” Unfortunately, the current proposal for Quendall runs completely contrary to the Mayor’s pledge. c. Superfund Site Carcinogens & The Impact on The Environment—The EPA has serious concerns about the carcinogenic substances on the Quendall site, cleanup and the adverse impact the cleanup may have on the Lake, including fishing and swimming and on several species. We share this concern. (EPA ID# WAD980639215). i. They state: “The primary contaminants of concern are carcinogenic PAHs and benzene. These contaminants are found in the soil and ground water throughout the site. These compounds are found at concentrations well above State cleanup levels for residential and industrial sites. At some locations on the site, creosote product has been found under the surface. In some areas the product is four to six feet thick. Release of these contaminants to Lake Washington are of particular concern. Lake Washington is used for a variety of recreational purposes including fishing and swimming. The southern end of Lake Washington, including the area where the site is located, is considered prime habitat for rearing of juvenile Chinook, which is a Federal Threatened Species, and other salmon stocks. The Cedar River, which enters Lake Washington approximately two miles from the site, supports the largest sockeye run in the contiguous United States. Lake Washington also supports several sensitive environments including habitat for bull trout and the bald eagle. In addition, there are two swimming beaches located within one half mile of the site.” As homeowners at Barbee Mill, we enjoy having access to the shoreline in our development and do not want to see it adversely impacted by release of contaminants nor do we want to put the health of our families at risk. d. We understand that the EPA has jurisdiction over the remediation and cleanup of the Superfund Site at Quendall Terminals. We are extremely concerned about what carcinogenic contaminants will be released into the air and water (through either surface or aquifer transfer) and into our neighborhoods and into our shoreline and May Creek as a result of the initial cleanup process. We are also extremely concerned the about Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 8 adverse impacts that the proposed mitigation, landfilling, grading, pile driving and other redevelopment activities will have on our neighborhoods and our residents. Furthermore, the DEIS does not propose dust control measures during the construction process to minimize contaminant transportation to Barbee Mill Homes. We believe strongly that it is not prudent or responsible to approve any binding redevelopment proposal for this site until the remediation and cleanup of this critical Superfund site has been thoroughly planned, executed and effectively completed by the EPA. To expedite the redevelopment process in order to pursue redevelopment income, puts at risk and adversely affects the health and lives of the immediate neighborhood residents, users of Lake Washington and the existing wildlife. Pursuing binding development agreements before Superfund cleanup would be an extremely poor decision with a tremendously risky outcome. e. Wetlands— The overall wetlands in the Quendall property are at least twice the size they are portrayed in the EIS. In particular, in the Southwest corner (a small blue dot labeled “H”) is nearly an acre in total size, which is 50-times the size of what is portrayed in the DEIS. i. The Wetland buffer area for shoreline wetlands should remain at a minimum of 50 ft and should not be reduced for shoreline trails or buildings as currently proposed and shown on figure 2-7. ii. Substituting Wetland “I” or “J”, which is nothing more than a drainage ditch, (per figure 2.6, 2.7 and 2.11) which are separated by Ripley Lane & the railroad tracks and have absolutely no continuity with the Quendall site are not adequate or appropriate solutions for mitigating onsite wetlands throughout the Quendall site including adjacent to Barbee Mill. f. Wildlife—The EIS makes no mention of existing wildlife or mitigation for their loss of habitat from the proposed construction. There are ospreys, eagles, herons, deer, hummingbirds, and other species living in the wetlands and natural habitat of the Quendall property. CONCLUSIONS 1) We recommend that the City not proceed with the current binding proposal as outlined in the Draft EIS. Of the three alternatives proposed, we believe that the only viable alternative is that of “NO ACTION.” 2) We certainly hope that Mayor Law meant what he pledged in his 2010 State of The City address when he stated: “By engaging citizens to participate in the process we are starting to create a picture of a city that is a leader in growth management.” a. Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, City Planners and Hearing Examiner, as citizens of Renton we are participating in the DEIS public hearing process and we believe that the proposals outlined in the DEIS for the Quendall Terminal Redevelopment are in no way in alignment with the goal of responsible growth management and would have tremendous adverse impacts on the surrounding community. 3) Mayor Law also concluded his 2010 State of the City address with these words: “I am optimistic about the future. I am optimistic because people in our community are willing to step up and do what is necessary; because it is through partnerships that we tackle tough issues; and because we never quit planning for the future of this great community.” Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 9 a. We believe that the proposals are poorly thought out and completely out of character with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. If approved and developed, the proposed Quendall development would be a devastating destruction to the shoreline of Lake Washington and to the surrounding community. This proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Property is not what we want to see in the future of our great community. 4) We believe that this proposal would have a tremendously adverse impact on the existing adjacent neighborhoods especially our Barbee Mill community. The proposed Quendall development would negatively impact and affect traffic, public safety, quality of life and property values in Barbee Mill and surrounding neighborhoods. 5) As homeowners, taxpayers and citizens of the City of Renton, we urge the City of Renton to not approve this binding proposal for the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Proposal. The only one of its alternatives that is viable is that of “NO ACTION!” Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-264 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 34 Roy and Joann Francis 1. See the response to Comment 1 in DEIS Letter 12. 2. See the response to Comment 2 in DEIS Letter 12. 3. See the response to Comment 3 in DEIS Letter 12. 4. See the response to Comment 4 in DEIS Letter 12. 5. See the response to Comment 5 in DEIS Letter 12. 6. See the response to Comment 6 in DEIS Letter 12. 7. See the response to Comment 7 in DEIS Letter 12. 8. See the response to Comment 8 in DEIS Letter 12. 9. See the response to Comment 9 in DEIS Letter 12. 10. See the response to Comment 10 in DEIS Letter 12. 11. See the response to Comment 11 in DEIS Letter 12. 12. See the response to Comment 12 in DEIS Letter 12. 13. See the response to Comment 13 in DEIS Letter 12. 14. See the response to Comment 14 in DEIS Letter 12. 15. See the response to Comment 15 in DEIS Letter 12. 16. See the response to Comment 16 in DEIS Letter 12. 17. See the response to Comment 17 in DEIS Letter 12. 18. See the response to Comment 18 in DEIS Letter 12. 19. See the response to Comment 19 in DEIS Letter 12. 20. See the response to Comment 20 in DEIS Letter 12. 21. See the response to Comment 21 in DEIS Letter 12. 22. See the response to Comment 22 in DEIS Letter 12. 23. See the response to Comment 23 in DEIS Letter 12. 24. See the response to Comment 24 in DEIS Letter 12. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-265 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 25. See the response to Comment 25 in DEIS Letter 12. 26. See the response to Comment 26 in DEIS Letter 12. 27. See the response to Comment 27 in DEIS Letter 12. 28. See the response to Comment 28 in DEIS Letter 12. 29. See the response to Comment 30 in DEIS Letter 12. 30. See the response to Comment 33 in DEIS Letter 12. 31. See the response to Comment 34 in DEIS Letter 12. 32. See the response to Comment 33 in DEIS Letter 12. 33. See the response to Comment 35 in DEIS Letter 12. 34. See the response to Comment 36 in DEIS Letter 12. 35. See the response to Comment 37 in DEIS Letter 12. 36. See the response to Comment 38 in DEIS Letter 12. 37. See the response to Comment 39 in DEIS Letter 12. 38. See the response to Comment 40 in DEIS Letter 12. 39. See the response to Comment 41 in DEIS Letter 12. 40. See the response to Comment 42 in DEIS Letter 12. 41. See the response to Comment 43 in DEIS Letter 12. 42. See the response to Comment 44 in DEIS Letter 12. 43. See the response to Comment 45 in DEIS Letter 12. 44. See the response to Comment 46 in DEIS Letter 12. 45. See the response to Comment 47 in DEIS Letter 12. 46. See the response to Comment 48 in DEIS Letter 12. 47. See the response to Comment 49 in DEIS Letter 12. 48. See the response to Comment 50 in DEIS Letter 12. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-267 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 35 Mike and Sharon Glenn 1. Your comment is noted for the record. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in the 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s large scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual building which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single family buildings. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 2. Your comment is noted for the record. Mitigation measures have been identified including transportation improvements that would be required to mitigate potential project traffic impacts with or without WSDOT I-405 Improvements. As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures. Without any I-405 Improvements, significant arterial and intersection improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard, at site access intersections, and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramp junctions would be required to be completed as part of the project (see EIS Addendum Section 3.4, Transportation, and Appendix E for details). The project mitigation measures would minimize vehicle trips and traffic impacts from the proposed redevelopment and result in acceptable traffic operations. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page 2-1) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. In addition, in 2014 the City of Renton conducted a review of cumulative transportation impacts along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor, including the Quendall Terminals Project and five other known pipeline projects (City of Renton Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton, October 2014). The review concluded that project- specific mitigation without I-405 improvements for Quendall Terminals would be adequate in the near-term and the relocation of the future signalized access into the site from Ripley Lane to N 43rd Street should be considered. As a result, mitigation measures for the Quendall Terminals Project have been modified in this FEIS to allow the City, WSDOT, the applicant and other adjacent property owners to further consider this potential relocation in future design of the interchange system (see FEIS Appendix C for details and FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures with the Preferred Alternative). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-268 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 3. Your comment is noted for the record. From: headac1@comcast.net [mailto:headac1@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 12:44 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Re: Quendall Terminals We would like to express my objection to the Quendall Terminals development. The commercial buildings proposed are not in keeping with the residential neighborhoods which surround the site. Their proposal is out of scope and ill conceived. I'm sure they wouldn't want such a development in their own backyard. Please turn down this development. Sincerely, John & Diane Haines 1014 N 27th Pl Renton, Wa 98056 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-270 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 36 Jon and Diane Haines 1. Your comment is noted for the record. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in the 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s large scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family residences. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 - pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. From:markmark@email.com [mailto:markmark@email.com] Sent:Monday, January 03, 2011 5:27 PM To:Vanessa Dolbee Cc:markmark@email.com Subject:Please extend Quendall Terminals public hearing Hi Vanessa - I am unable to attend the Quendall Terminals hearing on Tuesday night due to prior travel plans, and am writing to ask the City for an extension of the public hearing for this project, which I only became aware of at the end of last week. Preferably you can extend to a future evening when the public can give informed input in person, and at least for a few more weeks to provide informed written input (at least to the end of January). The extension of time is reasonable for a number of reasons: 1) This is a huge project for the neighborhood to absorb, and should not be rushed. 2) The neighborhood is not even aware of it, due to minimal (the minimum) public notice and no coverage in the media. 3) The Port Quendall page on the City's website, which citizens use to monitor progress on the property, does not even mention it: http://www.rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=2062 4) The DEIS was issued less than 30 days ago, and is huge at 482 pages. It is too long and complex to be studied, discussed and understood in that period of time. 5) The holidays have interfered with peoples' ability to learn about the project, or to spend the time required to study it. Thank you for considering my request, Mark Hancock PO Box 88811 Seattle, WA 98138 1 DEIS Letter 37 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-272 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 37 Mark Hancock 1. Your comment is noted for the record. The DEIS was issued on December 10, 2010, and included a 30-day public comment period. Public comments on the DEIS were initially due on January 10, 2010; however, based on feedback and input from the public, the public comment period was extended twice to provide a 60-day comment period. Your request in this letter was honored and the comment period time frame was extended. 4005 Park Ave. North Renton, WA 98056 425-430-1498 8 February, 2011 Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA, 98057 Attention: Vanessa Dolbee, PM I’m writing regarding the Quendall Terminals Draft EIS. My wife and I live in NW Kennydale, where we can see the subject property from less than ½ mile away. I’m very interested in the Quendall Terminals property finally being developed, and looking forward to that happening. At the same time, I’m very concerned about a number of issues that I don’t believe the DEIS deals with adequately or appropriately. First, on a positive note, I think the proposed shoreline trail development, with public access, is a big improvement over the earlier plans, which had only a small viewing area. Density of development and building height: With the exception of the Seahawk’s football warehouse to the north, the entire eastside of Lake Washington is relatively low density and low rise residential, from Boeing on the South, to Meydenbauer Bay to the north. With nothing over 3 stories in that stretch, these 7 story tall, and fairly massive buildings proposed, are too much for this site, particularly at the waters edge. The proposed Alternative 2 reduces the site density by eliminating the Office and 1/8th of the residential – that should allow the development to use shorter 3 to 4 story buildings closer to the lake, and then step up to as much as 7 stories, as they move away from the lake, towards Ripley Lane. This could greatly improve the overall appearance of the project from both near and far, and also open up better views for the upper floor residents in the more easterly buildings. Site access and traffic concerns: Traffic concerns are the second reason that I strongly recommend that Alternative 2 be the maximum development allowed on the site. With Alternative 1, if I-405 improvements are not forthcoming at the 44th Interchange, the DEIS states that the LOE goes down to E/F at 4 intersections. Alternative 2’s elimination of Office use and reduced residential units will provide some relief to that. I’m also concerned about additional traffic that this proposed development will generate to the south, along Lake. Washington Boulevard, and up to Park Avenue North. This is already used by many as a shortcut between Exit 6 (30th Street) and Exit 7 (44th), to avoid the heavier traffic on I- 405 between those two exits. I urge the City to take measures to minimize the negative impacts of the Quendall Terminal development on traffic flows on NE 40th and Park Ave. North. Sincerely, John Hansen Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-274 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 38 John Hansen 1. Your comment is noted for the record. If authorized by EPA’s Record of Decision (ROD) or any Natural Resource Damages (NRD) settlement, proposed redevelopment would include a shoreline trail that would be accessible to the public. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail would be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings, and could be combined with the fire access road. 2. Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative based on comments on the DEIS, and continued coordination with and input from EPA and the City of Renton. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in the 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s large scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family buildings. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 3. An updated transportation analysis was included in the EIS Addendum to respond to comments on the DEIS and provide analysis of the Preferred Alternative. The updated analysis included a summary comparison to illustrate the effect of proposed mitigation measures on transportation system operations in the area. FEIS Table 2-1 shows that all study intersections that would operate at LOS F with the proposed redevelopment, without mitigation, and without I-405 improvements would improve to LOS E or better with implementation of the identified mitigation measures (see FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page 2-3) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 4. Additional analysis of the Park Avenue N corridor is provided in this FEIS. Per the analysis, no existing diversion of traffic to the Park Avenue N roadway segment could be determined based on the evaluation of traffic volumes, and the roadway’s alignment/overall orientation and condition. Little if any traffic from the Quendall Terminals Project would be expected to divert to this roadway segment, for the same reasons that existing traffic does not use this route. In addition, to address the potential for traffic impacts to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor south of the development, Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-275 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments a project mitigation measure has been identified to install traffic calming treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard to the south of N 41st Street to encourage trips generated by the project to use I-405 (see Transportation mitigation measure H5 in FEIS Chapter 1). See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page 2-10) for details. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-277 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 39 Lawrence Hard 1. An analysis of the probable significant environmental impacts associated with proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site is included in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and this FEIS. Responses to comments received on the DEIS and EIS Addendum are provided in this FEIS. From: Gwendolyn High [mailto:gwendolynhigh@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 3:26 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee; Chip Vincent Subject: FW: Feedback on Quendall Terminals DEIS Dear Vanessa & Chip, Thank you for extending the deadline for submitting feedback on the Draft EIS for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project. My comments apply to both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. I believe that the comments of Larry Reyman, Kevin Poole and Paul Siegmund are well reasoned and very much representative of my own concerns and the concerns I have heard from other citizens. The argument that this proposal was submitted and vested before the adoption of the new Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and thus is exempt from that Program is not all there is to the story. The SEPA and EIS processes exist specifically to address situations exactly such as this one - to address the impacts not adequately addressed by the existing regulations to which a proposal is vested. The SMP's Inventory and Characterization and the standards developed to preserve and protect these areas constitute not only the best available science but also the most current record of the citizens' and the City's vision for the character, size and scale of future projects and this site. Therefore the design standards and the mitigation measures defined there should be applied to this site and this project. Sincerely, Gwendolyn High 155 Yakima Ave NE Renton WA 98059 206.279.0349gwendolynhigh@hotmail.com Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-279 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 40 Gwendolyn High 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS, a Preferred Alternative was developed by the applicant in response to comments received on the DEIS, and coordination with and input from EPA and the City of Renton. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum included a 100-foot minimum setback from the shoreline (versus the 50-foot minimum setback in the DEIS under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2). The minimum setback under the Preferred Alternative would be consistent with EPA’s recommended shoreline setback and the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (2011). Proposed building heights under the Preferred Alternative would also be consistent with the City’s current Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090(D)(7). From: Sylvia Holden [mailto:sbholden@nwlink.com] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 10:00 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: dariusvicki@msn.com Subject: Quendall Terminal Comment We find this proposal to be unsuitable for the following reasons: 1. The traffic it would generate would completely overwhelm freeway exit #7 and the surface street into Lake Washington Boulevard serving Barbee Mill and the north end of Lower Kennydale. There will be NO HELP from the state to mitigate the situation 2. The scale of the development is offensive. The Seahawks’ building, at the north end of their property was and is a tough nut to swallow. This, planted between Barbee Mill and the practice field, is overwhelming. 3. The development proposed is not needed. There is much residential and commercial development (in the Landing, for example) that is unused. In fact, We have heard that the Sanctuary and Reserve are in financial trouble. Also, two smaller properties north along Lake Washington Blvd are a long way from fully occupied. We don’t know about Bristol. 4. Planting this very large bulk along the whole north side of Barbee Mill would be a serious— unkind and greedy—impact on that development. It would be far more appropriate to have a much smaller scale development with much less bulk and more open space between and around the buildings as well as the requisite setback from the lakefront after existing development is approaching full, and there are funds for traffic mitigation so as not to overwhelm existing neighborhoods. Contrast Exit #7 with the Sunset exit that goes into multi‐laned boulevards that move traffic into, around and through the Landing. Chuck and Sylvia Holden 3609 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98056 425‐226‐9956 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-281 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 41 Chuck and Sylvia Holden 1. The DEIS and EIS Addendum included analyses of two transportation network scenarios: 1) with WSDOT I-405/NE 44th Street improvements, and 2) without I-405/NE 44th Street improvements. LOS analyses of traffic operations at the I-405 southbound and northbound ramps on NE 44th Street were included and associated transportation- related project mitigation measures were identified. With implementation of the identified mitigation measures, transportation facilities in the Exit 7 area would operate at acceptable levels. As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page 2-11) for details, FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 2. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in the 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s large scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family residences. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 3. Your comment is noted for the record. Market analyses prepared for the project by the applicant concluded that the proposed mixed-use development would be financially viable, and long-term vacancies would not be anticipated. It should also be noted that the Sanctuary and Reserve are both over 90 percent occupancy, which is considered to be full occupancy. 4. Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS, a Preferred Alternative was developed and analyzed in the EIS Addendum. The Preferred Alternative includes several modifications to enhance compatibility and provide a buffer between the proposed development and existing residential development to the south, including building modulation to place shorter buildings adjacent to the south property line, building setbacks, and landscaping. Proposed landscaping would also be designed to provide a partial visual screen between the proposed buildings and adjacent uses. See FEIS Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-282 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 5. Your comment is noted for the record. See the responses to Comments 1 and 2 in this letter. Approximately 10.6 acres of “Natural Open Space Areas” and “Other Related Areas” (approximately 49 percent of the site) would be provided onsite as part of the Preferred Alternative. The “Natural Public Open Space Area” shall include the approximately 0.5-acre trail within the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area (if authorized by EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement; if EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail would be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings, and could be combined with the fire access road) and the approximately 3.2 acres of natural area along the trail. Approximately 1.8 acres of indoor and/or outdoor area would be provided onsite for active recreation (i.e., Frisbee, swimming pools, tot lots, bocce ball courts, exercise rooms, active recreation in courtyards, etc.), as approved by the City’s responsible public official (see Parks and Recreation mitigation measure G2 and G8 in FEIS Chapter 1). From: Diane Jackson [mailto:dianej2419@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 5:00 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: COMMENTS - QUENDALL PROJECT I want to be on the record to object to the scale of the above-referenced project. The impact on the environment and the area alone sound like reasons alone to change the size. However, given the 2 projects next door, expecially the Seahawks' headquarters, are already too much. I need to send this so can't give more details for now. Thank you, Diane Espey Jackson 2419 Talbot Crest Dr. So. Renton, WA 98055 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-284 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 42 Diane Jackson 1. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in the 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s overall scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than the surrounding single-family buildings. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2- 24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 1 Date: To: City of Renton Planning Department Attn: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7314 vdolbee@rentonwa.gov From: Name: Paul & Terri Leland Address: 1223 N. 42 nd Pl., Renton, WA 98056 Phone Number: 425-204-5994 Email Address: ptleland@comcast.net Subject:Public Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal Draft EIS (LUA09-151) Following are our comments regarding the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal site as outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). As homeowners, tax payers and citizens of the City of Renton, we believe that the proposed and binding Quendall development proposal has tremendous negative and adverse impacts to the environment, property, the neighborhood and our Barbee Mill community and should NOT be approved. 1) Size & Scale Impact a. Scale—The proposed scale, density and height of the buildings in both alternatives are completely out-of-scale, incompatible and inconsistent with all neighborhoods on the entire shoreline of Lake Washington. The typical height limit for buildings along the Lake is 35 ft. The proposed heights and densities exceed those of Downtown Kirkland, Carillon Point, Bellevue and Seattle’s Lake Washington facing neighborhoods. Furthermore, the proposed scale, density and height of the Quendall proposal are inconsistent and incompatible with adjacent neighborhoods, the East facing shoreline of Mercer Island. It will completely dwarf the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. b. The proposed buildings would be more than 40 ft taller than the height of the Barbee Mill homes. And they would be more than double the height of all nearby residences! The proposed buildings are nearly 90 ft in height although they are marked as 77 ft on the applicants elevation drawings, which is 3/4 the height of the Seahawks/VMAC Facility and the Boeing Airplane Factory. Again this is completely out-of-scale with the Barbee Mill neighborhood AND anything else along the Lake Washington shoreline. (DEIS 3.5-12) i. Figure 3.7-2 in the DEIS is an inaccurate and misleading rendering that attempts to conceal the height and visual impact of both proposal alternatives. c. The proposed architectural design resembles an industrial park and does not have the look or the feel of a residential neighborhood. It is certainly “not consistent with the existing urban character” (as claimed in DEIS 3.5- 12) of any of the immediate and nearby residential neighborhoods, including Barbee Mill. The proposed scale, density and character would 1 2 3 4 5 DEIS Letter 43 See Antezana (Form Letter) Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 2 be an eyesore no matter what angle it is viewed from within the adjacent neighborhoods or from lakefront properties along Mercer. d. The proposed design looks more like the Landing, which is sandwiched in between a shopping center and the country’s second largest airplane factory and which is NOT located on the shores of one of the most beautiful lakes in the state and which is NOT located in the middle of an existing residential area. e. The Applicant claims that this area along the Lake Washington shoreline is currently a high-density urban environment. (DEIS 3.5-12) This statement is misleading and couldn’t be farther from the truth as all neighboring areas are completely residential (with the exception of the Seahawks facility.) f. The proposed designs and project scope, scale and density are inappropriate for the shoreline of Lake Washington and do not in any way take advantage of the Lake front location and view. The buildings face each other instead of the Lake. The primary lake view outlook and central lakefront architectural feature is a semi-circular parking lot. i. The Mayor stated in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Renton still has some amazing waterfront property on Lake Washington.”We couldn’t agree more. However, this proposal in no way takes advantage of or capitalizes on this amazing piece of waterfront property. In fact, the proposal looks like the City of Renton has taken a giant step backwards by proposing a self- facing vs. lake facing, residential complex, retail and office park with limited green space and tree canopy. This is not responsible growth. Nor is it responsible stewardship and development of the largest piece of remaining undeveloped land along the shoreline of beautiful Lake Washington. ii. The proposal calls for a straight, walled, 2-story parking garage, approximately 1000 ft in length, to traverse the entire Lake Washington frontage of the Quendall development with absolutely no undulation. There is nothing in the architectural design to break up the negative, visual impact of this two-story wall facing the Lake. This scale of this lake-facing 2-story garage wall is unheard of in residential zoning and lakefront zoning and does not fit the character nor complement the adjacent neighborhoods. g. The proposed development does NOT complement or add value to the existing neighborhoods especially neighboring Barbee Mill. Instead, this development would be tremendously destructive to the property value for the surrounding neighborhoods (including Barbee Mill, Kennydale, Newcastle and the East-facing side of Mercer Island) and detrimental to the quality of life for residents. 2) Density Impact a. This proposal repeatedly and misleadingly (DEIS 3.9-1) describes the Quendall development as “compatible with the existing neighborhoods.” This is preposterous and we strongly disagree. For example, Barbee Mill to the south has a planned density of 5 residential units per acre and contains no commercial (office or retail) space. The Quendall proposal is for 37 residential units per acre plus up to a ¼ million square feet of commercial space that would accommodate up to 2000 daily visitors. This is approximately 7 times the density of the local residential areas 5 cont 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 3 and is in no way “consistent with the existing urban character of the area.” In fact, the existing character of the local area can only accurately be described as residential. Both proposal alternatives, present tremendous compatibility impacts with the surrounding neighborhoods. b. Commercial/residential buildings in Renton and in the greater Eastside area, have tended to have a history of high-turnover, high-vacancy and have not proven to be particularly commercially viable. Our concern is that tenants of apartments and commercial space will have no vested interest in the neighborhood, the community or in the future vision for the city of Renton. And that such a development, could wind up sitting vacant for many years to come. 3) Traffic, Transportation & Parking Impact a. The traffic impact assessment in the DEIS is completely unrealistic. To begin with, the analysis in the DEIS does not take into account the traffic study and analysis for the adjacent Hawk’s Landing (Pan Abode) development, which estimated an additional 1400+ automotive trips a day flowing onto Lake Washington Blvd and adding to traffic congestion on the surrounding streets and I-405 exit 7 on-ramps and off-ramps. i. Before this or any other area development proposal is approved, a new, comprehensive traffic analysis should be done that focuses on the combined traffic impact of: Quendall Terminal property, Hawk’s Landing/Pan Abode property, Seakhawks/VMAC Facility, Ripley Lane neighborhood, Barbee Mill, Kennydale neighborhood, I-405 congestion, commuters trying to bypass 405 congestion on Lake Washington Blvd and the City’s goal of providing direct access to Lake Washington from Park Dr & Sunset Blvd. This comprehensive traffic analysis should reflect all existing, proposed and potential developments and their collective impact on the immediate vicinity and existing neighborhoods. WSDOT analysis, future plans and funding for I-405 must be factored into the traffic analysis and any infrastructure planning. (Reference: Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009) b. The proposal calls for an unacceptable increase in traffic with an estimated 2000 cars a day. Add to that, the estimated 1400 automotive trips a day from the proposed Hawks Landing development. The current infrastructure can in no way support the increases being proposed. There are no proposed plans to improve or widen the immediate roads or build the proper egress and ingress access roads to/from the proposed Quendall development. c. The proposal calls for N 43 rd St to serve as the primary entrance to the Quendall property. This narrow, residential street is already the primary entrance for the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. This un-striped, 2-lane 135-ft long street, which has two stop signs and a railroad crossing, can in no way accommodate the proposed additional 2000 cars per day PLUS the cars of Barbee Mill residents. Furthermore, 43rd has already become plagued by a dangerous trends of drivers making hazardous u-turns and 3-point turns in the intersection of 43rd and Lake Washington Blvd. Given all this, it is shocking that the DEIS does NOT list NE 43rd St as a roadway condition concern. NE 43rd St is in no way sufficient to serve as the primary entrance for both Quendall and Barbee 12 cont. 13 14 15 16 17 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 4 Mill it cannot safely and effectively accommodate the additional influx of 2000 cars per day. This proposal will result in intolerable traffic congestion, increased risk of accidents, noise pollution and egress problems for Barbee Mill Homeowners. i. 2000 additional cars/day will translate into 700 to 800 ft of traffic jams along Lake Washington Blvd, 43rd and Ripley Lane. The current infrastructure can in no way handle this increased volume. Lake Washington Blvd. is a narrow, 2-lane, scenic, curving, hilly, 25 mph road with bike lanes in both margins and many residential driveways. It is already extremely difficult to navigate Lake Washington Blvd given the present volume of traffic. Furthermore, it is already difficult with the present volume of traffic to enter or exit the Barbee Mill development at 43rd or 41st during the peak traffic hours and/or on sunny summer days from Lake Washington Blvd. Lake Washington Blvd does not have the capacity to handle the 2000/day proposed additional cars (3400+ if you factor in Hawk’s Landing). And, any serious infrastructure modifications to Lake Washington Blvd would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhoods, the environmentally sensitive May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline. 1. As a demonstration, one need to look no further than the congestion, parking and traffic nightmare that was created on 1/14/11 when hundreds of Seahawk Fans (including children and pets) and their vehicles descended on the intersection of Ripley Lane and Lake Washington Blvd. Cars were parked all over 43rd, 44th, Lake Washington & Ripley Lane. It made it nearly impossible to enter/exit Barbee Mill on 43rd. Fans also jammed the 30th Bridge and surrounding Kennydale neighborhoods, which has been proposed as an alternate travel route for the Quendall Property. 2. As a demonstration, congestion is also extremely heavy when during the Seahawk Training Days in August, despite the fact that the Seahawks arrange for buses and parking in the Landing in their effort to mitigate what would be the adverse impact of an approximate 2000 cars per day from coming into and parking in the neighborhoods adjacent to Ripley Lane including Barbee Mill. 3. We do not understand why the proposal does not bring traffic directly into the center of the Quendall property via a new access road which would need to be built to cross Ripley Lane and that would be more capable of handling that volume of traffic. However, we are not sure that any development plan that calls for 2000 or more additional cars/day on area roads can be adequately addressed through existing, modified or new infrastructure. 4. The details of the traffic analysis for Lake Washington Blvd at 43rd have been left out of (Table 3.9-1) AND there is no mention in the proposal of improving 43rd. ii. We are concerned that frustrated motorists who are eager to avoid the traffic congestion on Lake Washington Blvd will either make 17 cont. 18 19 20 21 22 23 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 5 dangerous u-turns and/or choose to use Barbee Mill as a major arterial north/south bypass route for Lake Washington Blvd. The streets within Barbee Mill can in no way accommodate this increased traffic volume. This bypass traffic would present a tremendous risk and inconvenience for Barbee Mill residents. It would hamper ability to safely enter and exit our own neighborhood and residences. The added traffic on Barbee Mill’s streets would create a public safety risks for residents as well as for area pedestrians, joggers, cyclists, children in strollers and pets that enjoy our streets. We are extremely concerned about the added danger of so many motorists trying to navigate the already hazardous blind curve at 42nd (just shortly after you turn into Barbee Mill from 43rd). The bypass traffic would also generate significant noise pollution. We believe that this proposal and its traffic volume will not only impact Barbee Mill homeowner and community safety but that it will adversely impact and reduce property values and quality of life for Barbee Mill homeowners. d. Traffic on I-405 at 44 th and 30th is already one of the most frequently congested parts of the freeway in both the North and South lanes. Congestion occurs not only at peak traffic hours but throughout the majority of the day. The freeway, just as the neighboring roads, can in no way accommodate an additional influx of 2000 cars per day. Throughout the proposal, the applicant has stated that various traffic impacts could be mitigated through a coordinated effort with WSDOT. However, WSDOT went on record during the DEIS Scoping Summary stating that “the potential I-405/NE 44 St interchange improvements project is not funded, and is not likely to be funded in the foreseeable future; the transportation analysis should not assume that this project is complete or will occur.”(Pg 5-EIS Scoping Summary) We believe that approving a major Quendall development plan without WSDOT commitment, funding, schedule and a plan in place to improve this interchange would have irreversible consequences and would cause a tremendous number of adverse impacts. i. There are scenarios in the proposal that suggest using the I-405 30th street onramp/offramp (exit 6) and then routing cars through the hilly, residential neighborhoods in Kennydale along 30th, 40th, Burnett and Park. This is not a realistic alternative and is equally as dangerous as cars choosing to use Barbee Mill as a shortcut. And it could encourage drivers travelling northbound and southbound on Lake Washington Blvd to take a shortcut through Barbee Mill. e. Transportation—The proposal does not include any plans to develop, improve or encourage public transit in the vicinity. This means that there would be no alternative form of transportation for the estimated 2000+ daily visitors and tenants. It is not an environmentally responsible transportation design solution to place 2000 additional cars onto neighborhood streets and the lakefront in this residential community without providing realistic transportation alternatives. i. In the Mayor’s 2010 State of the City Address, he declared “I believe that it is vital that we have the right infrastructure in place now to serve the needs of our future. We will continue to work with 23 cont. 24 25 26 27 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 6 the state and regional transportation organizations to make critical investments to create an affective transportation system that allows goods and people to move efficiently.”The Quendall proposal does not provide for any investments to create an affective transportation solution in the area NOR does it put the right infrastructure in place to serve the needs of the immediate area and alleviate traffic and noise and air pollution impacts and public safety risks. f. Parking—In the Proposal Alternative 2, there are surface level parking lots for 220 cars up placed right up against the entire north property line for Barbee Mill. This is in no way consistent with land use compatibility in the neighborhood and will adversely impact property values and quality of life. Nor is Proposal Alternative 1, which calls for a 6-story building to be placed right up against the north fence of Barbee Mill. We believe that it is not an acceptable plan to place parking lots, tall buildings and/or delivery entrances right up against the north Barbee Mill fence. i. We are concerned that if fees are charged for parking in the Quendall development, that visitors and tenants will seek out free parking in the adjacent neighborhood streets especially at Barbee Mill—which already suffers from insufficient street parking for residents and guests. 4) Public Safety Impact a. Cyclist Safety/Pedestrian/Runners Safety—Lake Washington Blvd was never meant to be a major thoroughfare. It is a hilly, scenic route through residential neighborhoods. It has no sidewalks and is very poorly lit at night. In fact, it is already quite dangerous on winter nights to turn into the Barbee Mill development at either 43 rd or 44th St as there are no streetlights at either intersection. Lake Washington Blvd (in addition to Barbee Mill streets) is currently used not only by vehicles but also by pedestrians walking their pets and children, joggers and bicyclists. Given that there are no sidewalks and poor lighting along the road, such an increase in cars would not only cause traffic gridlock and backups but would also present a tremendous safety hazard to all using the bike lanes and shoulders for purposes other than driving. i. As a demonstration, a Barbee Mill resident counted more than 140 cyclists using Lake Washington Blvd and crossing 43rd St in a 90- minute period on a recent summer Saturday morning. b. We are concerned that the proposed public access trail and above ground parking lots located right against Barbee Mill North fence would invite evening transient traffic and loitering that could lead to crime. This fence backs up against an existing quiet residential neighborhood. This would not only adversely impact quality of life for Barbee Mill residents but also reduce property values. c. We are concerned that the proposed traffic volume and insufficient infrastructure, would affect the ability of emergency vehicles and first responders to quickly access the Barbee Mill community (and Ripley Lane neighborhood) in the event of an emergency. This puts the lives and health of residents at risk. d. We are concerned that a newly accessible open public space, trails, and parking lots may become an attractive target to a criminal element and would bring an increase risk of crime, vandalism, gang activity, graffiti, 27 cont. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 7 noise, and other negative and unwanted activity that would put neighborhood homeowners’ safety and security at risk. 5) Light, Glare & Noise Impact a. We have tremendous concern over the amount light and glare that would be emitted from the proposed high-density residential buildings (proposed to be as high as 90ft) and the evening and night-time restaurant patrons and shoppers in the retail development. We also are concerned about the noise pollution that would come from delivery trucks, giant HVAC units, 2000+ cars/day and ensuing traffic, residential tenants, office workers, retail shoppers and potential bar/restaurant patrons. The light, glare and noise from the proposed Quendall development would adversely impact quality of life and property values for the residents and homeowners of Barbee Mill. 6) Environmental Impact a. The true baseline character of the Quendall property is unknown until the EPA mandated remedial action is fully specified and completed. We believe that the DEIS proposes prematurely, approval of a BINDING site plan for specifications of square feet of various building types, number of parking spaces, roads, traffic and egress to and from the development. Approving the BINDING plan PRIOR TO completed the mandated remedial clean up of the Superfund sight is not only unwise and imprudent but the long term consequences and negative impacts are just too great. As homeowners, this is not the legacy we want to have to live with nor is what we want for our health, our quality of life and our property values. b. Mayor Law declared in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Clean, healthy air; high quality drinking water; and trails and green open spaces are key to keeping our city a great place to live and work. Expanding our tree canopy, creating a better trail system, and protecting our environment provides many benefits to the city and boosts property values by making neighborhoods greener.”Unfortunately, the current proposal for Quendall runs completely contrary to the Mayor’s pledge. c. Superfund Site Carcinogens & The Impact on The Environment—The The EPA has tremendous concerns about the carcinogenic substances on the Quendall site, cleanup and the adverse impact the cleanup would have on the Lake, including fishing and swimming and on several species. We share this concern. (EPA ID# WAD980639215). i. They state: “The primary contaminants of concern are carcinogenic PAHs and benzene. These contaminants are found in the soil and ground water throughout the site. These compounds are found at concentrations well above State cleanup levels for residential and industrial sites. At some locations on the site, creosote product has been found under the surface. In some areas the product is four to six feet thick. Releases of these contaminants to Lake Washington are of particular concern. Lake Washington is used for a variety of recreational purposes including fishing and swimming. The southern end of Lake Washington, including the area where the site is located, is considered prime habitat for rearing of juvenile Chinook, which is a Federal Threatened Species, and other salmon stocks. The Cedar River, which enters Lake Washington approximately two 34 cont. 35 36 37 38 39 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 8 miles from the site, supports the largest sockeye run in the contiguous United States. Lake Washington also supports several sensitive environments including habitat for bull trout and the bald eagle. In addition, there are two swimming beaches located within one half mile of the site.” As homeowners at Barbee Mill, we enjoy having access to the shoreline in our development and do not want to see it adversely impacted by release of contaminates nor do we want to put the health of our families at risk. d. We understand that the EPA has jurisdiction over the remediation and cleanup of the Superfund Site at Quendall Terminals. We are extremely concerned about what carcinogenic contaminants will be released into the air and water (through either surface or aquifer transfer) and into our neighborhoods and into our shoreline and May Creek as a result of the initial cleanup process. We are also extremely concerned the adverse impact that the proposed mitigation, landfilling, grading, piling driving and other redevelopment activities will have on our neighborhoods and our residents. Furthermore, the DEIS proposes no dust control measures during the construction process to minimize contaminant transportation to Barbee Mill Homes. We believe strongly that it is NOT PRUDENT OR RESPONSIBLE to approve any BINDING redevelopment proposal for this site until the remediation and cleanup of this critical Superfund site has been thoroughly planned and safely planned, executed and effectively completed by the EPA. To expedite the redevelopment process in order to pursue redevelopment income, puts at risk and adversely affects the health and lives of the immediate neighborhood residents, users of Lake Washington and the existing wildlife. Pursuing binding development agreements BEFORE Superfund cleanup, would be an extremely poor decision with a tremendously risky outcome. e. Wetlands— The overall wetlands in the Quendall property are at least twice the size they are portrayed as in the EIS. In particular in the Southwest corner (a small blue dot labeled “H”) is nearly an acre in total size, which is 50-times the size of what is portrayed in the DEIS. i. The Wetland buffer area for shoreline wetlands should remain at a minimum of 50 ft and should not be reduced for shoreline trails or buildings as currently proposed and shown on figure 2-7. ii. Substituting Wetland “I” or “J”, which is nothing more than a drainage ditch, (per figure 2.6, 2.7 and 2.11) which are separated by Ripley Lane & the railroad tracks and have absolutely no continuity with the Quendall site are not adequate or appropriate solutions for mitigating onsite wetlands throughout the Quendall site including adjacent to Barbee Mill. f. Wildlife—The EIS makes no mention of existing wildlife or mitigation for their loss of habitat from the proposed construction. There are ospreys, eagles, herons, deer, hummingbirds, and other species living in the wetlands and natural habitat of the Quendall property. CONCLUSIONS 1) We recommend that the City does NOT PROCEED with the current BINDING proposal as outlined in the Draft EIS. Of the three alternatives proposed, we believe that the ONLY viable alternative is that of “NO ACTION.” 39 cont. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 9 2) We certainly hope that Mayor Law meant what he pledged in his 2010 State of The City address when he stated: “By engaging citizens to participate in the process we are starting to create a picture of a city that is a leader in growth management.” a. Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, City Planners and Hearing Examiner, as citizens of Renton we are participating in the DEIS public hearing process and we are loudly saying that the proposals outlined in the DEIS for the Quendall Terminal Redevelopment are in no way in alignment with that goal of responsible growth management and would have tremendous adverse impacts on the surrounding community. 3) Mayor Law also concluded his 2010 State of the City address with these words: “I am optimistic about the future. I am optimistic because people in our community are willing to step up and do what is necessary; because it is through partnerships that we tackle tough issues; and because we never quit planning for the future of this great community.” a. So here we are, the people of Renton stepping up and tackling the tough issues of a poorly thought out, extremely inappropriate and binding DEIS proposal that is completely out of character with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. IF approved and developed, the proposed Quendall development would be a devastating destruction to the shoreline of Lake Washington and to the surrounding community. This proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Property is definitely NOT what we want to see in the future of our great community. 4) We believe that this proposal would have a tremendously adverse impact on the existing adjacent neighborhoods especially our Barbee Mill community. The proposed Quendall development would negatively impact and affect traffic, public safety, quality of life and property values in Barbee Mill and surrounding neighborhoods. 5) As homeowners, taxpayers and citizens of the City of Renton, we urge the City of Renton to NOT approve this binding proposal for the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Proposal. The only one of its alternatives that is viable is that of “NO ACTION!” 47 48 49 50 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-294 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 43 Paul and Terry Leland 1. See the response to Comment 1 in DEIS Letter 12. 2. See the response to Comment 2 in DEIS Letter 12. 3. See the response to Comment 3 in DEIS Letter 12. 4. See the response to Comment 4 in DEIS Letter 12. 5. See the response to Comment 5 in DEIS Letter 12. 6. See the response to Comment 6 in DEIS Letter 12. 7. See the response to Comment 7 in DEIS Letter 12. 8. See the response to Comment 8 in DEIS Letter 12. 9. See the response to Comment 9 in DEIS Letter 12. 10. See the response to Comment 10 in DEIS Letter 12. 11. See the response to Comment 11 in DEIS Letter 12. 12. See the response to Comment 12 in DEIS Letter 12. 13. See the response to Comment 13 in DEIS Letter 12. 14. See the response to Comment 14 in DEIS Letter 12. 15. See the response to Comment 15 in DEIS Letter 12. 16. See the response to Comment 16 in DEIS Letter 12. 17. See the response to Comment 17 in DEIS Letter 12. 18. See the response to Comment 18 in DEIS Letter 12. 19. See the response to Comment 19 in DEIS Letter 12. 20. See the response to Comment 20 in DEIS Letter 12. 21. See the response to Comment 21 in DEIS Letter 12. 22. See the response to Comment 22 in DEIS Letter 12. 23. See the response to Comment 23 in DEIS Letter 12. 24. See the response to Comment 24 in DEIS Letter 12. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-295 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 25. See the response to Comment 25 in DEIS Letter 12. 26. See the response to Comment 26 in DEIS Letter 12. 27. See the response to Comment 27 in DEIS Letter 12. 28. See the response to Comment 28 in DEIS Letter 12. 29. See the response to Comment 29 in DEIS Letter 12. 30. See the response to Comment 30 in DEIS Letter 12. 31. See the response to Comment 31 in DEIS Letter 12. 32. See the response to Comment 32 in DEIS Letter 12. 33. See the response to Comment 33 in DEIS Letter 12. 34. See the response to Comment 34 in DEIS Letter 12. 35. See the response to Comment 35 in DEIS Letter 12. 36. See the response to Comment 36 in DEIS Letter 12. 37. See the response to Comment 37 in DEIS Letter 12. 38. See the response to Comment 38 in DEIS Letter 12. 39. See the response to Comment 39 in DEIS Letter 12. 40. See the response to Comment 40 in DEIS Letter 12. 41. See the response to Comment 41 in DEIS Letter 12. 42. See the response to Comment 42 in DEIS Letter 12. 43. See the response to Comment 43 in DEIS Letter 12. 44. See the response to Comment 44 in DEIS Letter 12. 45. See the response to Comment 45 in DEIS Letter 12. 46. See the response to Comment 46 in DEIS Letter 12. 47. See the response to Comment 47 in DEIS Letter 12. 48. See the response to Comment 48 in DEIS Letter 12. 49. See the response to Comment 49 in DEIS Letter 12. 50. See the response to Comment 50 in DEIS Letter 12. From: Amy Lietz Roberts [mailto:amyroberts@seanet.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 12:05 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Port Quendall comments Hello Vanessa, I am a part of the Kennydale association and just recently reviewed the plans sent out by our association leaders. I am astounded that anyone in Renton would want such a monstrosity structure on such a valuable eco piece of property in our city. I have lived in Kennydale since moving to Washington state in 1993. First renting, then buying in upper kennydale and 5 years ago buying in lower kennydale. We have chosen to stay in kennydale/Renton because of all the wonderful things Renton has to offer. When we have friends visit from Seattle(greenlake, Phinney Ridge, Ballard) and Bellevue, they comment every time what a gem we have for a neighborhood. It’s quiet, residential, with lots that have room for kids to run and play in. I love that I can walk my dogs with my young children on streets that have no sidewalks because it is so pedestrian and family friendly. My one hope for Port Quendall was to grab some of that neighborhood feel from some of the Seattle neighborhoods, and be able to offer small businesses to thrive in a primarily residential neighborhood. But the plans clearly show that it’s the exact opposite. I hope that I’m not let down like I have been so far with the great “build up and talk” of The Landing……Ross, Marshall’s, Golf Galaxy, The Sanctuary? Please, if we want to be “ahead of the curve” like all of the city government officials promote, we need to think beyond “cheap”. No wonder we can’t get a Trader Joe’s, PCC or similar store here to invest in our great community, you don’t have them assured that we are better than the cheap neighborhood that has plagued Renton for the years that I’ve been here. And going forward and building this huge Complex(and that’s what it will be) will only validate that we don’t think ahead and care about the long term future of our community. What will our children think 20‐30 years from now knowing we had the chance to make a difference and be better leaders than Seattle on environmental and social issues but we chose the quick buck first? I hope you, your staff, and your colleagues stop this mistake from going forward and push the leaders of this project to come forward with a more thought out and viable plan that has the support of the community it wishes to serve. Sincerely, Amy Lietz Roberts 1006 N 34th St, Renton Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-297 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 44 Amy Lietz Roberts 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. Your comment is noted for the record. Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 1 Date: January 18, 2011 To: City of Renton Planning Department Attn: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7314 vdolbee@rentonwa.gov From: Name: Bruce MacCaul Address:1246 N 42nd Place, Renton, WA 98056 Phone Number:949-489-8261 (Mobile) Email Address:bmaccaul@gmail.com Subject: Public Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal Draft EIS (LUA09-151) Following are our comments regarding the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal site as outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). As homeowners, tax payers and citizens of the City of Renton, we believe that the proposed and binding Quendall development proposal has tremendous negative and adverse impacts to the environment, property, the neighborhood and our Barbee Mill community and should NOT be approved. 1) Size & Scale Impact a. Scale—The proposed scale, density and height of the buildings in both alternatives are completely out-of-scale, incompatible and inconsistent with all neighborhoods on the entire shoreline of Lake Washington. The typical height limit for buildings along the Lake is 35 ft. The proposed heights and densities exceed those of Downtown Kirkland, Carillon Point, Bellevue and Seattle’s Lake Washington facing neighborhoods. Furthermore, the proposed scale, density and height of the Quendall proposal are inconsistent and incompatible with adjacent neighborhoods, the East facing shoreline of Mercer Island. It will completely dwarf the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. b. The proposed buildings would be more than 40 ft taller than the height of the Barbee Mill homes. And they would be more than double the height of all nearby residences! The proposed buildings are nearly 90 ft in height although they are marked as 77 ft on the applicants elevation drawings, which is 3/4 the height of the Seahawks/VMAC Facility and the Boeing Airplane Factory. Again this is completely out-of-scale with the Barbee Mill neighborhood AND anything else along the Lake Washington shoreline. (DEIS 3.5-12) i. Figure 3.7-2 in the DEIS is an inaccurate and misleading rendering that attempts to conceal the height and visual impact of both proposal alternatives. c. The proposed architectural design resembles an industrial park and does not have the look or the feel of a residential neighborhood. It is certainly “not consistent with the existing urban character” (as claimed in DEIS 3.5- 12) of any of the immediate and nearby residential neighborhoods, including Barbee Mill. The proposed scale, density and character would 1 2 3 4 5 DEIS Letter 45 See Antezana (Form Letter) Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 2 be an eyesore no matter what angle it is viewed from within the adjacent neighborhoods or from lakefront properties along Mercer. d. The proposed design looks more like the Landing, which is sandwiched in between a shopping center and the country’s second largest airplane factory and which is NOT located on the shores of one of the most beautiful lakes in the state and which is NOT located in the middle of an existing residential area. e. The Applicant claims that this area along the Lake Washington shoreline is currently a high-density urban environment. (DEIS 3.5-12) This statement is misleading and couldn’t be farther from the truth as all neighboring areas are completely residential (with the exception of the Seahawks facility.) f. The proposed designs and project scope, scale and density are inappropriate for the shoreline of Lake Washington and do not in any way take advantage of the Lake front location and view. The buildings face each other instead of the Lake. The primary lake view outlook and central lakefront architectural feature is a semi-circular parking lot. i. The Mayor stated in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Renton still has some amazing waterfront property on Lake Washington.” We couldn’t agree more. However, this proposal in no way takes advantage of or capitalizes on this amazing piece of waterfront property. In fact, the proposal looks like the City of Renton has taken a giant step backwards by proposing a self- facing vs. lake facing, residential complex, retail and office park with limited green space and tree canopy. This is not responsible growth. Nor is it responsible stewardship and development of the largest piece of remaining undeveloped land along the shoreline of beautiful Lake Washington. ii. The proposal calls for a straight, walled, 2-story parking garage, approximately 1000 ft in length, to traverse the entire Lake Washington frontage of the Quendall development with absolutely no undulation. There is nothing in the architectural design to break up the negative, visual impact of this two-story wall facing the Lake. This scale of this lake-facing 2-story garage wall is unheard of in residential zoning and lakefront zoning and does not fit the character nor complement the adjacent neighborhoods. g. The proposed development does NOT complement or add value to the existing neighborhoods especially neighboring Barbee Mill. Instead, this development would be tremendously destructive to the property value for the surrounding neighborhoods (including Barbee Mill, Kennydale, Newcastle and the East-facing side of Mercer Island) and detrimental to the quality of life for residents. 2) Density Impact a. This proposal repeatedly and misleadingly (DEIS 3.9-1) describes the Quendall development as “compatible with the existing neighborhoods.” This is preposterous and we strongly disagree. For example, Barbee Mill to the south has a planned density of 5 residential units per acre and contains no commercial (office or retail) space. The Quendall proposal is for 37 residential units per acre plus up to a ¼ million square feet of commercial space that would accommodate up to 2000 daily visitors. This is approximately 7 times the density of the local residential areas 5 cont 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 3 and is in no way “consistent with the existing urban character of the area.” In fact, the existing character of the local area can only accurately be described as residential. Both proposal alternatives, present tremendous compatibility impacts with the surrounding neighborhoods. b. Commercial/residential buildings in Renton and in the greater Eastside area, have tended to have a history of high-turnover, high-vacancy and have not proven to be particularly commercially viable. Our concern is that tenants of apartments and commercial space will have no vested interest in the neighborhood, the community or in the future vision for the city of Renton. And that such a development, could wind up sitting vacant for many years to come. 3) Traffic, Transportation & Parking Impact a. The traffic impact assessment in the DEIS is completely unrealistic. To begin with, the analysis in the DEIS does not take into account the traffic study and analysis for the adjacent Hawk’s Landing (Pan Abode) development, which estimated an additional 1400+ automotive trips a day flowing onto Lake Washington Blvd and adding to traffic congestion on the surrounding streets and I-405 exit 7 on-ramps and off-ramps. i. Before this or any other area development proposal is approved, a new, comprehensive traffic analysis should be done that focuses on the combined traffic impact of: Quendall Terminal property, Hawk’s Landing/Pan Abode property, Seakhawks/VMAC Facility, Ripley Lane neighborhood, Barbee Mill, Kennydale neighborhood, I-405 congestion, commuters trying to bypass 405 congestion on Lake Washington Blvd and the City’s goal of providing direct access to Lake Washington from Park Dr & Sunset Blvd. This comprehensive traffic analysis should reflect all existing, proposed and potential developments and their collective impact on the immediate vicinity and existing neighborhoods. WSDOT analysis, future plans and funding for I-405 must be factored into the traffic analysis and any infrastructure planning. (Reference: Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009) b. The proposal calls for an unacceptable increase in traffic with an estimated 2000 cars a day. Add to that, the estimated 1400 automotive trips a day from the proposed Hawks Landing development. The current infrastructure can in no way support the increases being proposed. There are no proposed plans to improve or widen the immediate roads or build the proper egress and ingress access roads to/from the proposed Quendall development. c. The proposal calls for N 43rd St to serve as the primary entrance to the Quendall property. This narrow, residential street is already the primary entrance for the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. This un-striped, 2-lane 135-ft long street, which has two stop signs and a railroad crossing, can in no way accommodate the proposed additional 2000 cars per day PLUS the cars of Barbee Mill residents. Furthermore, 43rd has already become plagued by a dangerous trends of drivers making hazardous u-turns and 3-point turns in the intersection of 43rd and Lake Washington Blvd. Given all this, it is shocking that the DEIS does NOT list NE 43rd St as a roadway condition concern. NE 43rd St is in no way sufficient to serve as the primary entrance for both Quendall and Barbee 12 cont. 13 14 15 16 17 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 4 Mill it cannot safely and effectively accommodate the additional influx of 2000 cars per day. This proposal will result in intolerable traffic congestion, increased risk of accidents, noise pollution and egress problems for Barbee Mill Homeowners. i. 2000 additional cars/day will translate into 700 to 800 ft of traffic jams along Lake Washington Blvd, 43rd and Ripley Lane. The current infrastructure can in no way handle this increased volume. Lake Washington Blvd. is a narrow, 2-lane, scenic, curving, hilly, 25 mph road with bike lanes in both margins and many residential driveways. It is already extremely difficult to navigate Lake Washington Blvd given the present volume of traffic. Furthermore, it is already difficult with the present volume of traffic to enter or exit the Barbee Mill development at 43rd or 41st during the peak traffic hours and/or on sunny summer days from Lake Washington Blvd. Lake Washington Blvd does not have the capacity to handle the 2000/day proposed additional cars (3400+ if you factor in Hawk’s Landing). And, any serious infrastructure modifications to Lake Washington Blvd would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhoods, the environmentally sensitive May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline. 1. As a demonstration, one need to look no further than the congestion, parking and traffic nightmare that was created on 1/14/11 when hundreds of Seahawk Fans (including children and pets) and their vehicles descended on the intersection of Ripley Lane and Lake Washington Blvd. Cars were parked all over 43rd, 44th, Lake Washington & Ripley Lane. It made it nearly impossible to enter/exit Barbee Mill on 43rd. Fans also jammed the 30th Bridge and surrounding Kennydale neighborhoods, which has been proposed as an alternate travel route for the Quendall Property. 2. As a demonstration, congestion is also extremely heavy when during the Seahawk Training Days in August, despite the fact that the Seahawks arrange for buses and parking in the Landing in their effort to mitigate what would be the adverse impact of an approximate 2000 cars per day from coming into and parking in the neighborhoods adjacent to Ripley Lane including Barbee Mill. 3. We do not understand why the proposal does not bring traffic directly into the center of the Quendall property via a new access road which would need to be built to cross Ripley Lane and that would be more capable of handling that volume of traffic. However, we are not sure that any development plan that calls for 2000 or more additional cars/day on area roads can be adequately addressed through existing, modified or new infrastructure. 4. The details of the traffic analysis for Lake Washington Blvd at 43rd have been left out of (Table 3.9-1) AND there is no mention in the proposal of improving 43rd. ii. We are concerned that frustrated motorists who are eager to avoid the traffic congestion on Lake Washington Blvd will either make 17 cont. 18 19 20 21 22 23 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 5 dangerous u-turns and/or choose to use Barbee Mill as a major arterial north/south bypass route for Lake Washington Blvd. The streets within Barbee Mill can in no way accommodate this increased traffic volume. This bypass traffic would present a tremendous risk and inconvenience for Barbee Mill residents. It would hamper ability to safely enter and exit our own neighborhood and residences. The added traffic on Barbee Mill’s streets would create a public safety risks for residents as well as for area pedestrians, joggers, cyclists, children in strollers and pets that enjoy our streets. We are extremely concerned about the added danger of so many motorists trying to navigate the already hazardous blind curve at 42nd (just shortly after you turn into Barbee Mill from 43rd). The bypass traffic would also generate significant noise pollution. We believe that this proposal and its traffic volume will not only impact Barbee Mill homeowner and community safety but that it will adversely impact and reduce property values and quality of life for Barbee Mill homeowners. d. Traffic on I-405 at 44th and 30th is already one of the most frequently congested parts of the freeway in both the North and South lanes. Congestion occurs not only at peak traffic hours but throughout the majority of the day. The freeway, just as the neighboring roads, can in no way accommodate an additional influx of 2000 cars per day. Throughout the proposal, the applicant has stated that various traffic impacts could be mitigated through a coordinated effort with WSDOT. However, WSDOT went on record during the DEIS Scoping Summary stating that “the potential I-405/NE 44 St interchange improvements project is not funded, and is not likely to be funded in the foreseeable future; the transportation analysis should not assume that this project is complete or will occur.” (Pg 5-EIS Scoping Summary) We believe that approving a major Quendall development plan without WSDOT commitment, funding, schedule and a plan in place to improve this interchange would have irreversible consequences and would cause a tremendous number of adverse impacts. i. There are scenarios in the proposal that suggest using the I-405 30th street onramp/offramp (exit 6) and then routing cars through the hilly, residential neighborhoods in Kennydale along 30th, 40th, Burnett and Park. This is not a realistic alternative and is equally as dangerous as cars choosing to use Barbee Mill as a shortcut. And it could encourage drivers travelling northbound and southbound on Lake Washington Blvd to take a shortcut through Barbee Mill. e. Transportation—The proposal does not include any plans to develop, improve or encourage public transit in the vicinity. This means that there would be no alternative form of transportation for the estimated 2000+ daily visitors and tenants. It is not an environmentally responsible transportation design solution to place 2000 additional cars onto neighborhood streets and the lakefront in this residential community without providing realistic transportation alternatives. i. In the Mayor’s 2010 State of the City Address, he declared “I believe that it is vital that we have the right infrastructure in place now to serve the needs of our future. We will continue to work with 23 cont. 24 25 26 27 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 6 the state and regional transportation organizations to make critical investments to create an affective transportation system that allows goods and people to move efficiently.” The Quendall proposal does not provide for any investments to create an affective transportation solution in the area NOR does it put the right infrastructure in place to serve the needs of the immediate area and alleviate traffic and noise and air pollution impacts and public safety risks. f. Parking—In the Proposal Alternative 2, there are surface level parking lots for 220 cars up placed right up against the entire north property line for Barbee Mill. This is in no way consistent with land use compatibility in the neighborhood and will adversely impact property values and quality of life. Nor is Proposal Alternative 1, which calls for a 6-story building to be placed right up against the north fence of Barbee Mill. We believe that it is not an acceptable plan to place parking lots, tall buildings and/or delivery entrances right up against the north Barbee Mill fence. i. We are concerned that if fees are charged for parking in the Quendall development, that visitors and tenants will seek out free parking in the adjacent neighborhood streets especially at Barbee Mill—which already suffers from insufficient street parking for residents and guests. 4) Public Safety Impact a. Cyclist Safety/Pedestrian/Runners Safety—Lake Washington Blvd was never meant to be a major thoroughfare. It is a hilly, scenic route through residential neighborhoods. It has no sidewalks and is very poorly lit at night. In fact, it is already quite dangerous on winter nights to turn into the Barbee Mill development at either 43rd or 44th St as there are no streetlights at either intersection. Lake Washington Blvd (in addition to Barbee Mill streets) is currently used not only by vehicles but also by pedestrians walking their pets and children, joggers and bicyclists. Given that there are no sidewalks and poor lighting along the road, such an increase in cars would not only cause traffic gridlock and backups but would also present a tremendous safety hazard to all using the bike lanes and shoulders for purposes other than driving. i. As a demonstration, a Barbee Mill resident counted more than 140 cyclists using Lake Washington Blvd and crossing 43rd St in a 90- minute period on a recent summer Saturday morning. b. We are concerned that the proposed public access trail and above ground parking lots located right against Barbee Mill North fence would invite evening transient traffic and loitering that could lead to crime. This fence backs up against an existing quiet residential neighborhood. This would not only adversely impact quality of life for Barbee Mill residents but also reduce property values. c. We are concerned that the proposed traffic volume and insufficient infrastructure, would affect the ability of emergency vehicles and first responders to quickly access the Barbee Mill community (and Ripley Lane neighborhood) in the event of an emergency. This puts the lives and health of residents at risk. d. We are concerned that a newly accessible open public space, trails, and parking lots may become an attractive target to a criminal element and would bring an increase risk of crime, vandalism, gang activity, graffiti, 27 cont. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 7 noise, and other negative and unwanted activity that would put neighborhood homeowners’ safety and security at risk. 5) Light, Glare & Noise Impact a. We have tremendous concern over the amount light and glare that would be emitted from the proposed high-density residential buildings (proposed to be as high as 90ft) and the evening and night-time restaurant patrons and shoppers in the retail development. We also are concerned about the noise pollution that would come from delivery trucks, giant HVAC units, 2000+ cars/day and ensuing traffic, residential tenants, office workers, retail shoppers and potential bar/restaurant patrons. The light, glare and noise from the proposed Quendall development would adversely impact quality of life and property values for the residents and homeowners of Barbee Mill. 6) Environmental Impact a. The true baseline character of the Quendall property is unknown until the EPA mandated remedial action is fully specified and completed. We believe that the DEIS proposes prematurely, approval of a BINDING site plan for specifications of square feet of various building types, number of parking spaces, roads, traffic and egress to and from the development. Approving the BINDING plan PRIOR TO completed the mandated remedial clean up of the Superfund sight is not only unwise and imprudent but the long term consequences and negative impacts are just too great. As homeowners, this is not the legacy we want to have to live with nor is what we want for our health, our quality of life and our property values. b. Mayor Law declared in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Clean, healthy air; high quality drinking water; and trails and green open spaces are key to keeping our city a great place to live and work. Expanding our tree canopy, creating a better trail system, and protecting our environment provides many benefits to the city and boosts property values by making neighborhoods greener.” Unfortunately, the current proposal for Quendall runs completely contrary to the Mayor’s pledge. c. Superfund Site Carcinogens & The Impact on The Environment—The The EPA has tremendous concerns about the carcinogenic substances on the Quendall site, cleanup and the adverse impact the cleanup would have on the Lake, including fishing and swimming and on several species. We share this concern. (EPA ID# WAD980639215). i. They state: “The primary contaminants of concern are carcinogenic PAHs and benzene. These contaminants are found in the soil and ground water throughout the site. These compounds are found at concentrations well above State cleanup levels for residential and industrial sites. At some locations on the site, creosote product has been found under the surface. In some areas the product is four to six feet thick. Releases of these contaminants to Lake Washington are of particular concern. Lake Washington is used for a variety of recreational purposes including fishing and swimming. The southern end of Lake Washington, including the area where the site is located, is considered prime habitat for rearing of juvenile Chinook, which is a Federal Threatened Species, and other salmon stocks. The Cedar River, which enters Lake Washington approximately two 34 cont. 35 36 37 38 39 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 8 miles from the site, supports the largest sockeye run in the contiguous United States. Lake Washington also supports several sensitive environments including habitat for bull trout and the bald eagle. In addition, there are two swimming beaches located within one half mile of the site.” As homeowners at Barbee Mill, we enjoy having access to the shoreline in our development and do not want to see it adversely impacted by release of contaminates nor do we want to put the health of our families at risk. d. We understand that the EPA has jurisdiction over the remediation and cleanup of the Superfund Site at Quendall Terminals. We are extremely concerned about what carcinogenic contaminants will be released into the air and water (through either surface or aquifer transfer) and into our neighborhoods and into our shoreline and May Creek as a result of the initial cleanup process. We are also extremely concerned the adverse impact that the proposed mitigation, landfilling, grading, piling driving and other redevelopment activities will have on our neighborhoods and our residents. Furthermore, the DEIS proposes no dust control measures during the construction process to minimize contaminant transportation to Barbee Mill Homes. We believe strongly that it is NOT PRUDENT OR RESPONSIBLE to approve any BINDING redevelopment proposal for this site until the remediation and cleanup of this critical Superfund site has been thoroughly planned and safely planned, executed and effectively completed by the EPA. To expedite the redevelopment process in order to pursue redevelopment income, puts at risk and adversely affects the health and lives of the immediate neighborhood residents, users of Lake Washington and the existing wildlife. Pursuing binding development agreements BEFORE Superfund cleanup, would be an extremely poor decision with a tremendously risky outcome. e. Wetlands— The overall wetlands in the Quendall property are at least twice the size they are portrayed as in the EIS. In particular in the Southwest corner (a small blue dot labeled “H”) is nearly an acre in total size, which is 50-times the size of what is portrayed in the DEIS. i. The Wetland buffer area for shoreline wetlands should remain at a minimum of 50 ft and should not be reduced for shoreline trails or buildings as currently proposed and shown on figure 2-7. ii. Substituting Wetland “I” or “J”, which is nothing more than a drainage ditch, (per figure 2.6, 2.7 and 2.11) which are separated by Ripley Lane & the railroad tracks and have absolutely no continuity with the Quendall site are not adequate or appropriate solutions for mitigating onsite wetlands throughout the Quendall site including adjacent to Barbee Mill. f. Wildlife—The EIS makes no mention of existing wildlife or mitigation for their loss of habitat from the proposed construction. There are ospreys, eagles, herons, deer, hummingbirds, and other species living in the wetlands and natural habitat of the Quendall property. CONCLUSIONS 1) We recommend that the City does NOT PROCEED with the current BINDING proposal as outlined in the Draft EIS. Of the three alternatives proposed, we believe that the ONLY viable alternative is that of “NO ACTION.” 39 cont. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 9 2) We certainly hope that Mayor Law meant what he pledged in his 2010 State of The City address when he stated: “By engaging citizens to participate in the process we are starting to create a picture of a city that is a leader in growth management.” a. Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, City Planners and Hearing Examiner, as citizens of Renton we are participating in the DEIS public hearing process and we are loudly saying that the proposals outlined in the DEIS for the Quendall Terminal Redevelopment are in no way in alignment with that goal of responsible growth management and would have tremendous adverse impacts on the surrounding community. 3) Mayor Law also concluded his 2010 State of the City address with these words: “I am optimistic about the future. I am optimistic because people in our community are willing to step up and do what is necessary; because it is through partnerships that we tackle tough issues; and because we never quit planning for the future of this great community.” a. So here we are, the people of Renton stepping up and tackling the tough issues of a poorly thought out, extremely inappropriate and binding DEIS proposal that is completely out of character with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. IF approved and developed, the proposed Quendall development would be a devastating destruction to the shoreline of Lake Washington and to the surrounding community. This proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Property is definitely NOT what we want to see in the future of our great community. 4) We believe that this proposal would have a tremendously adverse impact on the existing adjacent neighborhoods especially our Barbee Mill community. The proposed Quendall development would negatively impact and affect traffic, public safety, quality of life and property values in Barbee Mill and surrounding neighborhoods. 5) As homeowners, taxpayers and citizens of the City of Renton, we urge the City of Renton to NOT approve this binding proposal for the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Proposal. The only one of its alternatives that is viable is that of “NO ACTION!” 47 48 49 50 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-307 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 45 Bruce MacCaul 1. See the response to Comment 1 in DEIS Letter 12. 2. See the response to Comment 2 in DEIS Letter 12. 3. See the response to Comment 3 in DEIS Letter 12. 4. See the response to Comment 4 in DEIS Letter 12. 5. See the response to Comment 5 in DEIS Letter 12. 6. See the response to Comment 6 in DEIS Letter 12. 7. See the response to Comment 7 in DEIS Letter 12. 8. See the response to Comment 8 in DEIS Letter 12. 9. See the response to Comment 9 in DEIS Letter 12. 10. See the response to Comment 10 in DEIS Letter 12. 11. See the response to Comment 11 in DEIS Letter 12. 12. See the response to Comment 12 in DEIS Letter 12. 13. See the response to Comment 13 in DEIS Letter 12. 14. See the response to Comment 14 in DEIS Letter 12. 15. See the response to Comment 15 in DEIS Letter 12. 16. See the response to Comment 16 in DEIS Letter 12. 17. See the response to Comment 17 in DEIS Letter 12. 18. See the response to Comment 18 in DEIS Letter 12. 19. See the response to Comment 19 in DEIS Letter 12. 20. See the response to Comment 20 in DEIS Letter 12. 21. See the response to Comment 21 in DEIS Letter 12. 22. See the response to Comment 22 in DEIS Letter 12. 23. See the response to Comment 23 in DEIS Letter 12. 24. See the response to Comment 24 in DEIS Letter 12. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-308 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 25. See the response to Comment 25 in DEIS Letter 12. 26. See the response to Comment 26 in DEIS Letter 12. 27. See the response to Comment 27 in DEIS Letter 12. 28. See the response to Comment 28 in DEIS Letter 12. 29. See the response to Comment 29 in DEIS Letter 12. 30. See the response to Comment 30 in DEIS Letter 12. 31. See the response to Comment 31 in DEIS Letter 12. 32. See the response to Comment 32 in DEIS Letter 12. 33. See the response to Comment 33 in DEIS Letter 12. 34. See the response to Comment 34 in DEIS Letter 12. 35. See the response to Comment 35 in DEIS Letter 12. 36. See the response to Comment 36 in DEIS Letter 12. 37. See the response to Comment 37 in DEIS Letter 12. 38. See the response to Comment 38 in DEIS Letter 12. 39. See the response to Comment 39 in DEIS Letter 12. 40. See the response to Comment 40 in DEIS Letter 12. 41. See the response to Comment 41 in DEIS Letter 12. 42. See the response to Comment 42 in DEIS Letter 12. 43. See the response to Comment 43 in DEIS Letter 12. 44. See the response to Comment 44 in DEIS Letter 12. 45. See the response to Comment 45 in DEIS Letter 12. 46. See the response to Comment 46 in DEIS Letter 12. 47. See the response to Comment 47 in DEIS Letter 12. 48. See the response to Comment 48 in DEIS Letter 12. 49. See the response to Comment 49 in DEIS Letter 12. 50. See the response to Comment 50 in DEIS Letter 12. COMMENTS REGARDING THE LUA09-151 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) FOR QUENDALL TERMINAL My name is Marylouise MacCaul. I am a homeowner in Barbee Mill, living at 1246 N 42nd Place. The rear of our home is just six feet from the Quendall property line where the 2000 car parking is proposed. We are the first building adjacent to 43rd street where the proposed entrance exists. Our genuine concerns reach beyond these obvious impacts. Alternatives 1 and 2 will create an enormous property in my backyard. The keywords and phrases that come to mind for this proposal are: Premature, Overreaching, Noise, Traffic, Congestion, Binding, “Dwarfs Barbee”, “Out of Character”, “Contaminated Dust”, and “Parking Problems”. No binding plans should be agreed to before the site is cleaned up and remaining impacts understood, Here are my specific concerns that lead me to request the city’s support for the NO- ACTION alternative: • The scope and size of DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 will SEVERELY DWARF the residential character of the Barbee Mill Development. • “The Highest and Best Use” of the Quendall property is limited by poor accessibility, and contamination. Alternatives 1 and 2 simply overreach and overload the site. Utilizing the shoreline to it best use is ignored. • The DEIS does not addresses congestion that will create noise pollution as well as ingress and egress problems for Barbee Mill Owners. • Barbee Mill parking is barely adequate for its residents. The DEIS proposal parking for 2000+ cars which will likely overflow onto our streets . • The DEIS proposes no dust control measures during the construction process to minimize contaminant transportation to the Barbee Mill homes. • There is no study showing the combined traffic impacts from the Seahawks, Quendall, Hawks Landing, and Barbee Mill projects, with the I405 interchange #7, and with the slow and narrow Lake Washington Blvd • The true baseline character of the property is unknown until the EPA mandated remedial action is fully specified and completed, • The DEIS prematurely proposes, APPROVAL OF A BINDING SITE PLAN for specifications of square feet for various building types, number of parking spaces, roads, traffic, and egress to and from the development. • DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, no matter how you look at it, are PREMATURE and OVERREACH the Highest and Best use of the Property PLEASE SUPPORT THE NO_ACTION ALTERNATIVE January 19, 2011 --- Phone: 425-430-5409 ---- email: mimiafsc@mac.com Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-310 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 46 Marylouise MacCaul 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e, in the 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s large scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family buildings. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 3. Mitigation measures have been identified to mitigate project traffic impacts with or without WSDOT I-405 Improvements. Without any I-405 Improvements, significant arterial and intersection improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard, at site access intersections, and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramp junctions would be required to be completed as part of the project. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page 2-1) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). EPA will oversee the cleanup/remediation of the site prior to redevelopment of the site as a mixed-use development. EPA will ensure that contaminants that are present in site soils and groundwater from past industrial operations will not be released into the air and water during or following site cleanup/remediation. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Environmental Health – page 2-19) for details on the relationship between the site cleanup/remediation and proposed redevelopment. 4. The proposed primary site access would be via the Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street intersection. Access via N 43rd Street would also be provided, with an estimated 25 percent of all project traffic using this access. As shown in the DEIS and EIS Addendum, with this estimated distribution of project traffic, no substantial traffic operational impacts are anticipated at the existing Barbee Mill access (N 43rd Street) (see FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page 2-1) for details). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-311 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments Subsequent to the issuance of the EIS Addendum, the City of Renton completed the Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton (October 2014) and determined that the Quendall Terminals Project should install a traffic signal at the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection as opposed to the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. However, if the traffic signal and configuration of N 43rd Street have not been constructed prior to WSDOT improvements at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, the City will consider changing the location of this signal to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard. An engineering study will be completed at that time to support the determination of the location for the installation of the traffic signal at either the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection or the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures with the Preferred Alternative. In DEIS Section 3.5, Land Use, it is acknowledged that the proposed redevelopment would result in increased activity levels and noise, relative to existing conditions. However, the project would not be expected to result in significant noise impacts in the Barbee Mill development given the type of development that is proposed and the fact that the primary access point would be via the Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street intersection, and not the Barbee Mill access. The City of Renton conducted a review of cumulative transportation impacts along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor, including the Quendall Terminals Project and five other known pipeline projects, in the City of Renton Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton. The review concluded that project-specific mitigation without I-405 improvements for Quendall Terminals would be adequate in the near-term and the relocation of the future signalized access into the site from Ripley Lane to N 43rd Street should be considered. As a result, mitigation measures for the Quendall Terminals Project have been modified in this FEIS to allow the City, WSDOT, the applicant and other adjacent property owners to further consider this potential relocation in future design of the interchange system (see FEIS Appendix C for details). 5. An analysis of parking impacts was included in the DEIS and EIS Addendum (see Appendices H and E to those documents, respectively, for details). The proposed parking under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, and the Preferred Alternative would meet the minimum requirements of the City of Renton, and would be sufficient to handle the proposed parking demand under the redevelopment alternatives. Therefore, residents, employees, and visitors to the project would not be expected to seek parking in Barbee Mill. 6. The DEIS and EIS Addendum identified potential construction-related impacts that could occur with redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site (DEIS Section 3.6 and EIS Addendum Section 4.5). Construction activities would be required to comply with City of Renton construction regulations and would also comply with institutional controls associated with site cleanup/remediation and the Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan that would be implemented by EPA to prevent site disturbances without prior EPA approval. Two new mitigation measures have been added to this FEIS to address dust control (see Construction Impacts mitigation measures J1 and J2 in FEIS Chapter 1). 7. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum represent a comprehensive review of transportation impacts of existing and future traffic operations in the vicinity of Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-312 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments the Quendall Terminals site. They specifically account for general and discrete pipeline development (including Barbee Mill, Hawks Landing and the Kennydale Apartments); account for peak utilization of the Seahawks Training Facility; consider regional growth and traffic demand in the vicinity with and without future planned widening of I-405 by WSDOT; and, reflect the latest available regional forecasts of population and employment levels throughout the Puget Sound. See FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page 2-1) for details. 8. EPA has indicated that the environmental baseline (post-remediation conditions) assumptions represented in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are reasonable given the expected general outcome of the Record of Decision (ROD), if an increased 100-foot shoreline setback is assumed. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes the shoreline setback recommended by EPA. EPA is planning to consider potential land uses such as those proposed under the Preferred Alternative during consideration of the selected remediation alternative. EPA will select the most appropriate remedy to address contamination in the lake sediments and upland area considering the nature and extent of contamination, site-specific conditions, and comparative analysis of remedial technologies and alternatives. A new mitigation measure has been added in this FEIS indicating that in the event that the issued EPA ROD is different than what is assumed for this EIS, the City reviewing official shall determine whether the applicant shall be required to prepare additional SEPA review for the project (see Environmental Health mitigation measure C10 in FEIS Chapter 1). 9. Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative in response to comments received on the DEIS, and coordination and input from EPA and the City. The Preferred Alternative was analyzed in the EIS Addendum. The DEIS and EIS Addendum identify potential environmental impacts and associated mitigation measures for the proposal and are intended to be used as tools in the decision-making process by the City of Renton and other regulators. The documents do not authorize approval of the project or any portion of the project. 10. Your comment is noted for the record. 6 February 2010 Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner Planning Division, 6th Floor Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 vdolbee@rentonwa.gov Dear Vanessa: Recently I sent a letter to the editor as follows: LETTER TO THE EDITOR Thanks to the Renton Reporter for their newsworthy Hearing Notice article about the proposed Quendall Terminals development project next to the Sea Hawks and Barbee Mill. This massive project will significantly change everything in the City of Renton and adjoining neighborhoods forever. The proposal includes ¼ million sq ft of office space and 800 residences in 7 story towers, all on 21 acres. In contrast the overall scale of the project is much larger than the Seahawks training camp and closer to the Boeing assembly building. Now is the time for the public to comment on the DEIS. Public comment period ends February 9. Marleen Mandt Kennydale Resident Based on reading the draft EIS and the impact to a residential community; this project is out of line from the standpoint of traffic flow, NOX / SOX emissions and impact to a quiet family friendly neighborhood. Traffic Flow Since there no money to create the infrastructure to build a new interchange to Exit 7 (N 44) traffic then increases on a Lower Kennydale. Fact 1 – The Traffic Study part of this draft did not in account the whole of Lower Kennydale but only to selected streets that does not show a true picture of the impact to a residential street. Streets in Lower Kennydale have steep and narrow. I live on 26th that connects to Clover Creek development on 27th. There are signs on both 26th and 27th posted for 15 miles an hour. This street gets traffic when the freeway is back up and boats with boat trailers. Where starting to get Freeway traffic through Kennydale at all times of the day. Fact 2 – Lake Washington is a heavy used area for bicycling, running, and walking. If you live on the lake it is the only place you can walk a dog, push baby carriage, or ride a bicycle. This is a two lane road with much used by the Kennydale residents or others that come down and want to be by the lake. It’s also a commuter and exercise route for bicyclist. Mitigation: Make all streets in Lower Kennydale 15 miles an hour this will quiet the neighborhood and show to cars coming into Kennydale that we are a residential community made up of families and individuals. Put benches along Lake Washington to show quiet down the blvd. NOX / SOX / Noise No study was down on the NOX / SOX emission for the entire Lower Kennydale community. On record I asked WDOT if they have study for the proposed highway widening project and they done a study. Quality of life is important immunizing impacts due to increase traffic stops and go’s is due to the large volume of vehicles coming into Lower Kennydale due to this project. It’s important to state this is a residential community and not a commercial. Increase of noise, not acceptable for my neighborhood Migration: A study be made of the impact not a computer model both during summer and winter I look forward to providing testimony if asked; I find this project out of character for the neighborhood and wish the city to reconsider. Since I am a taxpayer I would not want any of my tax dollars to support later studies. But would support if the developer paid the City of Renton to do the studies I would be behind this effort. Sincerely Yours Marleen Mandt 1408 N 26th St Renton, Wa., 98056 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-315 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 47 Marleen Mandt 1. Your comment is noted for the record. Please note that DEIS Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative do not include office uses. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in the 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s overall scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family buildings. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 2. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum assumed two transportation scenarios: 1) future development of the Quendall Terminals site with the WSDOT NE 44th Street/I-405 Improvements, and 2) future development without the NE 44th Street/I- 405 Improvements. Mitigation measures were identified for both scenarios that would minimize potential vehicle trip and traffic impacts associated with the project, and result in acceptable traffic operations. As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures. See FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of the mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 3. Additional transportation analysis is included in this FEIS for the Kennydale Neighborhood (Park Avenue N). Based on this additional analysis, no existing diversion of traffic to the Park Avenue N roadway segment could be determined based on the evaluation of traffic volumes, and the roadway’s alignment/overall orientation and condition. Little if any traffic from the Quendall Terminals Project would be expected to divert to this roadway segment, for the same reasons that existing traffic does not use this route. In addition, to mitigate the potential for traffic impacts to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor south of the development, the applicant shall install traffic calming treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard to the south of N 41st Street to encourage trips generated by the project to use the I-405 corridor. See FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-316 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments Areas (Transportation – page 2-10) for details, and Transportation mitigation measure H5 in FEIS Chapter 1. 4. Your comments are noted for the record. See the Affected Environment sections in DEIS Appendix H and EIS Addendum Appendix E for details on existing transportation conditions. The Preferred Alternative would include features to ensure safe pedestrian circulation on the site and in the site vicinity, including curbs, gutters and sidewalks within the site, as well as curbs, gutters and sidewalks along the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane adjacent to the project site. Traffic calming treatments would also be provided on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 41st Street. And, a paved bicycle lane would be provided along the east and west sides of Ripley Lane from the end of the current bike trail along Ripley Lane to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard, or a multi-use path could be developed on one side or separated from Ripley Lane to mitigate potential conflicts between bicycles and the Quendall Terminals site access point on Ripley Lane (see mitigation measure H10 in FEIS Chapter 1). 5. Your comments are noted for the record. Posted speed limits and residential traffic management concerns should be directed to the Renton Public Works Department. 6. Your comment is noted for the record. 7. As part of the EIS process, public scoping was held in 2010 (including a public scoping meeting on April 27, 2010) to help identify the environmental elements that would be analyzed in the EIS. Based on the scoping process, the City of Renton identified: earth, critical areas, environmental health, energy/greenhouse gas emissions, land and shoreline use, relationship to plans and policies, aesthetics/views, parks and recreation, and transportation as the elements to be analyzed. The DEIS and EIS Addendum analyzed potential noise and air quality impacts as construction-related impacts that could occur with redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site (DEIS Section 3.6 and EIS Addendum Section 4.5). Construction activities would be required to comply with City of Renton construction regulations and would also comply with institutional controls associated with site cleanup/remediation and the Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan that would be implemented by EPA to prevent site disturbances without prior EPA approval. See FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Construction Impacts – page 2-34) for details on construction-related impacts, and new Construction mitigation measures J1 through J4 in FEIS Chapter 1. 8. Your comment is noted for the record. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-318 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 48 Cyrus McNeely 1. Please see FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topics Areas (Transportation – page 2-10) for additional analysis of the project’s potential impacts to Park Avenue N (Kennydale neighborhood). That analysis concluded that the project would not be expected to generate substantial cut-through traffic through the Kennydale neighborhood or significant impacts on operation of the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange. February 7, 2011 Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner City of Renton RE: Port Quendall site plans I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed Port Quendall project. The project size of a 7 story building with 800+ apartments, office space and retail does not belong on a waterfront which is mostly residential in nature. If the owners/developers feel the need to develop it they should look to the Barbee Mill development which is owner- occupied low level structures. Kennydale is a suburban not urban area and needs to remain that way. The traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard is already very heavy at certain times of the day. Anytime traffic slows on I-405 the boulevard becomes the road of choice for many who do not obey posted speed limits. To add an additional 1000+ car trips a day on the existing roadways is ludicrous. To suggest that traffic should funnel to North 30th Street into a residential neighborhood makes absolutely no sense. Additional retail space is not needed in this area as the space at The Landing 2 miles away is still not fully occupied. I think the city of Renton needs to deny the application as presented and the only choice is alternative #3 which is to leave the site vacant. Susan A Miller 806 N 30th Street Renton WA 98056 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-320 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 49 Susan Miller 1. Your comment is noted for the record. Please note that DEIS Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative do not include office uses. Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative based on comments on the DEIS, and continued coordination with and input from EPA and the City of Renton. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in the 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s large scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family buildings. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details. 2. The transportation analysis in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and this FEIS represents a comprehensive review of the transportation impacts of existing and future operations in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site. As part of the analysis, mitigation measures were identified, including transportation improvements that would be required to mitigate project traffic impacts with or without potential future I-405 Improvements. Without any I- 405 improvements, significant arterial and intersection improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard, at site access intersections, and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramp junctions would be required to be completed as part of the project. As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures (see FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum do not recommend routing any project traffic to the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange system. The analyses do indicate that without any I-405 Improvements by WSDOT or intersection improvements at the ramp junctions at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, project-generated traffic to/from the south of the project site is forecast to shift to access the freeway at the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange as well as other parallel routes east and west of I-405 during peak commute periods. This potential diversion of traffic was determined to have no significant adverse traffic impacts on the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor or key intersections that would serve these diverted trips via Burnett Avenue N and N 30th Street. See FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation page 2-10) for additional analysis of the Park Avenue N corridor and the N 30th Street/I-405 ramps. (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-321 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 3. Your comment is noted for the record. Market analyses prepared for the project by the applicant concluded that the proposed mixed-use development would be financially viable, and long-term vacancies would not be anticipated. 4. Your comment is noted for the record. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-329 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 50 Dan Mitzel 1. Mitigation measures have been identified with and without the WSDOT I-405 Improvements. These mitigation measures include payment of a mitigation fee, as well as a number of other measures. A sketch of the I-405/NE 44th Street interchange and Lake Washington Boulevard conceptual Improvements (without I-405 improvements) is included in this FEIS (see FEIS Figure 2-2). In addition to channelization of Lake Washington Boulevard, project mitigation under future conditions would include signalization at the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard, I-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street, and I-405 northbound ramp/NE 44th Street intersection. 2. The DEIS transportation analysis was updated in the EIS Addendum (see EIS Addendum Appendix E); additional transportation analysis is also included in this FEIS (see Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page 2-1) and Appendix B to this document). These analyses represent a comprehensive review of the potential transportation impacts of the Quendall Terminals Project. They specifically account for general traffic growth and traffic from pipeline development (including Hawk’s Landing, Barbee Mill, the Kennydale Apartments, etc.); reflect the latest available regional forecasts of population and employment levels throughout the Puget Sound; and, account for peak use of the existing Seahawks Training Facility. The studies consider regional growth and traffic demand in the site vicinity with and without future planned widening of I-405 (including congestion and diversion to parallel corridors). In addition, in 2014 the City of Renton conducted a review of cumulative transportation impacts along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor, including the Quendall Terminals Project and five other known pipeline projects (City of Renton Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton (October 2014). The review concluded that project- specific mitigation without I-405 improvements for Quendall Terminals would be adequate in the near-term and the relocation of the future signalized access into the site from Ripley Lane to N 43rd Street should be considered. As a result, mitigation measures for the Quendall Terminals Project have been modified in this FEIS to allow the City, WSDOT, the applicant and other adjacent property owners to further consider this potential relocation in future design of the interchange system (see FEIS Appendix C for details and FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures with the Preferred Alternative. Significant vehicle queuing of 800 feet or more was estimated to occur on Ripley Lane as a result of the additional project traffic without any mitigation. With project traffic mitigation, vehicle queuing would be reduced substantially and general traffic operations and queuing would fall within acceptable traffic operational conditions (estimated at approximately 200 feet for the southbound left turn queues on Ripley Lane), and no blockage of adjacent intersections would occur (see FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas, Transportation – page 2-1) for details). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-330 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 3. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum did not recommend routing any project traffic to the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange system. The analyses do indicate that without any I-405 Improvements by WSDOT or intersection improvements at the ramp junctions at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, project-generated traffic to/from the south of the project site is forecast to shift to access the freeway at the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange as well as other parallel routes east and west of I-405 during peak commute periods. This potential diversion of traffic was found to have no significant traffic impacts on the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor or key intersections that would serve these diverted trips via Burnett Avenue N and N 30th Street (see DEIS Appendix H and EIS Addendum Appendix E for details). Also see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation page 2-10) for additional analysis of the Park Avenue N corridor and the N 30th Street/I-405 ramps 4. Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative, based in part on comments received on the DEIS, and coordination with and input from EPA and the City. The Preferred Alternative was analyzed in the EIS Addendum and includes modifications that would enhance the visual character and views through the site, including a wider view corridor along “Street B”, maximized view corridors along the southern property line, and building height modulation. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Aesthetics/Views – page 2-27) for details. 5. Your comment is noted for the record. The assumed project build-out year in the DEIS and EIS Addendum was 2015. The applicant has updated the assumed build-out date to 2017 for this FEIS. As appropriate, analyses included in the FEIS account for the updated build-out date. In particular see Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) for discussions of the updated transportation analysis. 6. Your comment is noted for the record. The EIS Addendum (Section 3.4 and Appendix E) provided an updated analysis of vehicle queuing at key site intersections along Lake Washington Boulevard under various scenarios. With the project mitigation, vehicle queuing at the main site access (Ripley Lane and Lake Washington Boulevard) is estimated to be a maximum of approximately 200 feet for southbound left turn queues and 250 feet or less for eastbound queues during peak periods, and no blockage of adjacent intersections would occur (see FEIS Figure 2-1 for a depiction of the traffic movements at this intersection). Ultimately, the City of Renton will determine the best configuration for Lake Washington Boulevard improvements given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange design, King County (owner of the vicinity railroad right-of-way), and adjacent private development. 7. Your comment is noted for the record. 8. Your comment is noted for the record. 9. Your comment is noted for the record. 10. Traffic forecasts for the I-405 corridor indicate that without any improvements along the corridor, significant congestion would be experienced southbound, and that diversion of project and non-project traffic to parallel corridors (i.e., Lake Washington Boulevard) would occur. The potential impacts of this diversion on the adjacent I-405 interchange Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-331 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments system were evaluated in the DEIS. Under future 2017 assumed build-out conditions without I-405 Improvements, project mitigation measures would be implemented to address existing deficiencies as well as accommodate project traffic increases between Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street and I-405 southbound Ramps/NE 44th Street (see DEIS Appendix H and EIS Addendum E for details). The diversion of both project and non- project traffic is forecast to occur with no future I-405 widening improvements. Under these conditions, diversion of project traffic is expected to occur to other parallel traffic routes east of I-405 as well. 11. Your comment is noted for the record. 12. Your comment is noted for the record. 13. Your comment is noted for the record. 14. Your comment is noted for the record. 15. Your comment is noted for the record. 16. Your comment is noted for the record. 17. Your comment is noted for the record. 18. The 2006 study referenced in this comment cited design assumptions and conclusions that have been superseded by WSDOT in their latest design of channelization improvements at the NE 44th Street/I-405 Interchange. The analyses in the Quendall Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum contemplated the latest interchange and vicinity intersection geometric configuration/traffic control assumptions under the scenario that includes I-405 Improvements. These assumptions are still valid; however, WSDOT is considering phasing of these improvements. See FEIS Figure 2-2 for an illustration of the I-405/NE 44th Street interchange and Lake Washington Boulevard conceptual improvements (without I-405 Improvements). 19. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 2 in this letter. From:Ross Ohashi [mailto:taryntani@gmail.com] Sent:Monday, January 17, 2011 7:56 PM To:Vanessa Dolbee Subject:Quendall Terminal Draft EIS (LUA09-151) Dear Ms. Dolbee, We were out of town and unable to attend the Jan 4 Public Comment Hearing Meeting re the proposed development directly adjacent to (north) the Barbee Mill community. Barbee Mill is a great residential community, and since we were not at the Hearing Meeting, we cannot speak for our fellow neighbors (although all we have spoken to feel just as strongly as we do). However my wife and I are ADAMANTLY opposed to the proposed Quendall Terminal project. This proposed project is COMPLETLY out of character with ALL development on Lake Washington, and will DESTROY our quality of living and property values if allowed to go forward. There are numerous problems with the proposed development, including: * Size and scale NEGATIVE IMPACT. * Traffic and parking NEGATIVE IMPACT. * Density NEGATIVE IMPACT. * Light and glare NEGATIVE IMPACT. * Environmental NEGATIVE IMPACT. * Public safety NEGATIVE IMPACT. In the interest of succinctness and brevity, we have not elaborated on the points above. Please do not hesitate to contact us directly if you need more detail. We respectfully request the City of Renton to NOT approve this binding proposal for the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Proposal. The ONLY one of its alternatives that is viable is that of “NO ACTION!” Could you please reply so that we know you received my communication? Thank you in advance for your consideration. Ross & Ava Ohashi 1018 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 425.890.3045 taryntani@gmail.com 1 2 3 4 DEIS Letter 51 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-333 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 51 Ross and Ava Ohashi 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in the 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s overall scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family buildings. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for final list of the mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. WAC 197-11-448(3) does not require an EIS to discuss economic factors and the fiscal aspects of a project. 3. The DEIS and EIS Addendum included analyses of the probable significant impacts of the project, including on land use, transportation, aesthetics/light and glare, and environmental health. Mitigation measures were identified to address the potential significant impacts of the project on these elements. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk and Scale – page 2-23; Transportation – page 2-1; Aesthetics – page 2-27; Light and Glare – page 2-31; and, Environmental Health – page 2-19) for details on the environmental analyses for each of these elements, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of the mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. The proposed project is not expected to result in significant impacts on public safety; therefore, this element was not analyzed in the EIS. 4. Your comment is noted for the record. Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 1 Date: January 20, 2011 To: City of Renton Planning Department Attn: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7314 vdolbee@rentonwa.gov From: Name: Suzanne W & Donald A Orehek Address: 4103 Wells Avenue North Phone Number: 516-944-8739 (in NY) Email Address: suzywo@verizon.net Subject: Public Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal Draft EIS (LUA09-151) Following are our comments regarding the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal site as outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). As homeowners, tax payers and citizens of the City of Renton, we believe that the proposed and binding Quendall development proposal has tremendous negative and adverse impacts to the environment, property, the neighborhood and our Barbee Mill community and should NOT be approved. 1) Size & Scale Impact a. Scale—The proposed scale, density and height of the buildings in both alternatives are completely out-of-scale, incompatible and inconsistent with all neighborhoods on the entire shoreline of Lake Washington. The typical height limit for buildings along the Lake is 35 ft. The proposed heights and densities exceed those of Downtown Kirkland, Carillon Point, Bellevue and Seattle’s Lake Washington facing neighborhoods. Furthermore, the proposed scale, density and height of the Quendall proposal are inconsistent and incompatible with adjacent neighborhoods, the East facing shoreline of Mercer Island. It will completely dwarf the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. b. The proposed buildings would be more than 40 ft taller than the height of the Barbee Mill homes. And they would be more than double the height of all nearby residences! The proposed buildings are nearly 90 ft in height although they are marked as 77 ft on the applicants elevation drawings, which is 3/4 the height of the Seahawks/VMAC Facility and the Boeing Airplane Factory. Again this is completely out-of-scale with the Barbee Mill neighborhood AND anything else along the Lake Washington shoreline. (DEIS 3.5-12) i. Figure 3.7-2 in the DEIS is an inaccurate and misleading rendering that attempts to conceal the height and visual impact of both proposal alternatives. c. The proposed architectural design resembles an industrial park and does not have the look or the feel of a residential neighborhood. It is certainly “not consistent with the existing urban character” (as claimed in DEIS 3.5- 12) of any of the immediate and nearby residential neighborhoods, including Barbee Mill. The proposed scale, density and character would Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 2 be an eyesore no matter what angle it is viewed from within the adjacent neighborhoods or from lakefront properties along Mercer. d. The proposed design looks more like the Landing, which is sandwiched in between a shopping center and the country’s second largest airplane factory and which is NOT located on the shores of one of the most beautiful lakes in the state and which is NOT located in the middle of an existing residential area. e. The Applicant claims that this area along the Lake Washington shoreline is currently a high-density urban environment. (DEIS 3.5-12) This statement is misleading and couldn’t be farther from the truth as all neighboring areas are completely residential (with the exception of the Seahawks facility.) f. The proposed designs and project scope, scale and density are inappropriate for the shoreline of Lake Washington and do not in any way take advantage of the Lake front location and view. The buildings face each other instead of the Lake. The primary lake view outlook and central lakefront architectural feature is a semi-circular parking lot. i. The Mayor stated in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Renton still has some amazing waterfront property on Lake Washington.” We couldn’t agree more. However, this proposal in no way takes advantage of or capitalizes on this amazing piece of waterfront property. In fact, the proposal looks like the City of Renton has taken a giant step backwards by proposing a self- facing vs. lake facing, residential complex, retail and office park with limited green space and tree canopy. This is not responsible growth. Nor is it responsible stewardship and development of the largest piece of remaining undeveloped land along the shoreline of beautiful Lake Washington. ii. The proposal calls for a straight, walled, 2-story parking garage, approximately 1000 ft in length, to traverse the entire Lake Washington frontage of the Quendall development with absolutely no undulation. There is nothing in the architectural design to break up the negative, visual impact of this two-story wall facing the Lake. This scale of this lake-facing 2-story garage wall is unheard of in residential zoning and lakefront zoning and does not fit the character nor complement the adjacent neighborhoods. g. The proposed development does NOT complement or add value to the existing neighborhoods especially neighboring Barbee Mill. Instead, this development would be tremendously destructive to the property value for the surrounding neighborhoods (including Barbee Mill, Kennydale, Newcastle and the East-facing side of Mercer Island) and detrimental to the quality of life for residents. 2) Density Impact a. This proposal repeatedly and misleadingly (DEIS 3.9-1) describes the Quendall development as “compatible with the existing neighborhoods.” This is preposterous and we strongly disagree. For example, Barbee Mill to the south has a planned density of 5 residential units per acre and contains no commercial (office or retail) space. The Quendall proposal is for 37 residential units per acre plus up to a ¼ million square feet of commercial space that would accommodate up to 2000 daily visitors. This is approximately 7 times the density of the local residential areas Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 3 and is in no way “consistent with the existing urban character of the area.” In fact, the existing character of the local area can only accurately be described as residential. Both proposal alternatives, present tremendous compatibility impacts with the surrounding neighborhoods. b. Commercial/residential buildings in Renton and in the greater Eastside area, have tended to have a history of high-turnover, high-vacancy and have not proven to be particularly commercially viable. Our concern is that tenants of apartments and commercial space will have no vested interest in the neighborhood, the community or in the future vision for the city of Renton. And that such a development, could wind up sitting vacant for many years to come. 3) Traffic, Transportation & Parking Impact a. The traffic impact assessment in the DEIS is completely unrealistic. To begin with, the analysis in the DEIS does not take into account the traffic study and analysis for the adjacent Hawk’s Landing (Pan Abode) development, which estimated an additional 1400+ automotive trips a day flowing onto Lake Washington Blvd and adding to traffic congestion on the surrounding streets and I-405 exit 7 on-ramps and off-ramps. i. Before this or any other area development proposal is approved, a new, comprehensive traffic analysis should be done that focuses on the combined traffic impact of: Quendall Terminal property, Hawk’s Landing/Pan Abode property, Seakhawks/VMAC Facility, Ripley Lane neighborhood, Barbee Mill, Kennydale neighborhood, I-405 congestion, commuters trying to bypass 405 congestion on Lake Washington Blvd and the City’s goal of providing direct access to Lake Washington from Park Dr & Sunset Blvd. This comprehensive traffic analysis should reflect all existing, proposed and potential developments and their collective impact on the immediate vicinity and existing neighborhoods. WSDOT analysis, future plans and funding for I-405 must be factored into the traffic analysis and any infrastructure planning. (Reference: Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009) b. The proposal calls for an unacceptable increase in traffic with an estimated 2000 cars a day. Add to that, the estimated 1400 automotive trips a day from the proposed Hawks Landing development. The current infrastructure can in no way support the increases being proposed. There are no proposed plans to improve or widen the immediate roads or build the proper egress and ingress access roads to/from the proposed Quendall development. c. The proposal calls for N 43rd St to serve as the primary entrance to the Quendall property. This narrow, residential street is already the primary entrance for the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. This un-striped, 2-lane 135-ft long street, which has two stop signs and a railroad crossing, can in no way accommodate the proposed additional 2000 cars per day PLUS the cars of Barbee Mill residents. Furthermore, 43rd has already become plagued by a dangerous trends of drivers making hazardous u-turns and 3-point turns in the intersection of 43rd and Lake Washington Blvd. Given all this, it is shocking that the DEIS does NOT list NE 43rd St as a roadway condition concern. NE 43rd St is in no way sufficient to serve as the primary entrance for both Quendall and Barbee Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 4 Mill it cannot safely and effectively accommodate the additional influx of 2000 cars per day. This proposal will result in intolerable traffic congestion, increased risk of accidents, noise pollution and egress problems for Barbee Mill Homeowners. i. 2000 additional cars/day will translate into 700 to 800 ft of traffic jams along Lake Washington Blvd, 43rd and Ripley Lane. The current infrastructure can in no way handle this increased volume. Lake Washington Blvd. is a narrow, 2-lane, scenic, curving, hilly, 25 mph road with bike lanes in both margins and many residential driveways. It is already extremely difficult to navigate Lake Washington Blvd given the present volume of traffic. Furthermore, it is already difficult with the present volume of traffic to enter or exit the Barbee Mill development at 43rd or 41st during the peak traffic hours and/or on sunny summer days from Lake Washington Blvd. Lake Washington Blvd does not have the capacity to handle the 2000/day proposed additional cars (3400+ if you factor in Hawk’s Landing). And, any serious infrastructure modifications to Lake Washington Blvd would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhoods, the environmentally sensitive May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline. 1. As a demonstration, one need to look no further than the congestion, parking and traffic nightmare that was created on 1/14/11 when hundreds of Seahawk Fans (including children and pets) and their vehicles descended on the intersection of Ripley Lane and Lake Washington Blvd. Cars were parked all over 43rd, 44th, Lake Washington & Ripley Lane. It made it nearly impossible to enter/exit Barbee Mill on 43rd. Fans also jammed the 30th Bridge and surrounding Kennydale neighborhoods, which has been proposed as an alternate travel route for the Quendall Property. 2. As a demonstration, congestion is also extremely heavy when during the Seahawk Training Days in August, despite the fact that the Seahawks arrange for buses and parking in the Landing in their effort to mitigate what would be the adverse impact of an approximate 2000 cars per day from coming into and parking in the neighborhoods adjacent to Ripley Lane including Barbee Mill. 3. We do not understand why the proposal does not bring traffic directly into the center of the Quendall property via a new access road which would need to be built to cross Ripley Lane and that would be more capable of handling that volume of traffic. However, we are not sure that any development plan that calls for 2000 or more additional cars/day on area roads can be adequately addressed through existing, modified or new infrastructure. 4. The details of the traffic analysis for Lake Washington Blvd at 43rd have been left out of (Table 3.9-1) AND there is no mention in the proposal of improving 43rd. ii. We are concerned that frustrated motorists who are eager to avoid the traffic congestion on Lake Washington Blvd will either make Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 5 dangerous u-turns and/or choose to use Barbee Mill as a major arterial north/south bypass route for Lake Washington Blvd. The streets within Barbee Mill can in no way accommodate this increased traffic volume. This bypass traffic would present a tremendous risk and inconvenience for Barbee Mill residents. It would hamper ability to safely enter and exit our own neighborhood and residences. The added traffic on Barbee Mill’s streets would create a public safety risks for residents as well as for area pedestrians, joggers, cyclists, children in strollers and pets that enjoy our streets. We are extremely concerned about the added danger of so many motorists trying to navigate the already hazardous blind curve at 42nd (just shortly after you turn into Barbee Mill from 43rd). The bypass traffic would also generate significant noise pollution. We believe that this proposal and its traffic volume will not only impact Barbee Mill homeowner and community safety but that it will adversely impact and reduce property values and quality of life for Barbee Mill homeowners. d. Traffic on I-405 at 44th and 30th is already one of the most frequently congested parts of the freeway in both the North and South lanes. Congestion occurs not only at peak traffic hours but throughout the majority of the day. The freeway, just as the neighboring roads, can in no way accommodate an additional influx of 2000 cars per day. Throughout the proposal, the applicant has stated that various traffic impacts could be mitigated through a coordinated effort with WSDOT. However, WSDOT went on record during the DEIS Scoping Summary stating that “the potential I-405/NE 44 St interchange improvements project is not funded, and is not likely to be funded in the foreseeable future; the transportation analysis should not assume that this project is complete or will occur.” (Pg 5-EIS Scoping Summary) We believe that approving a major Quendall development plan without WSDOT commitment, funding, schedule and a plan in place to improve this interchange would have irreversible consequences and would cause a tremendous number of adverse impacts. i. There are scenarios in the proposal that suggest using the I-405 30th street onramp/offramp (exit 6) and then routing cars through the hilly, residential neighborhoods in Kennydale along 30th, 40th, Burnett and Park. This is not a realistic alternative and is equally as dangerous as cars choosing to use Barbee Mill as a shortcut. And it could encourage drivers travelling northbound and southbound on Lake Washington Blvd to take a shortcut through Barbee Mill. e. Transportation—The proposal does not include any plans to develop, improve or encourage public transit in the vicinity. This means that there would be no alternative form of transportation for the estimated 2000+ daily visitors and tenants. It is not an environmentally responsible transportation design solution to place 2000 additional cars onto neighborhood streets and the lakefront in this residential community without providing realistic transportation alternatives. i. In the Mayor’s 2010 State of the City Address, he declared “I believe that it is vital that we have the right infrastructure in place now to serve the needs of our future. We will continue to work with Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 6 the state and regional transportation organizations to make critical investments to create an affective transportation system that allows goods and people to move efficiently.” The Quendall proposal does not provide for any investments to create an affective transportation solution in the area NOR does it put the right infrastructure in place to serve the needs of the immediate area and alleviate traffic and noise and air pollution impacts and public safety risks. f. Parking—In the Proposal Alternative 2, there are surface level parking lots for 220 cars up placed right up against the entire north property line for Barbee Mill. This is in no way consistent with land use compatibility in the neighborhood and will adversely impact property values and quality of life. Nor is Proposal Alternative 1, which calls for a 6-story building to be placed right up against the north fence of Barbee Mill. We believe that it is not an acceptable plan to place parking lots, tall buildings and/or delivery entrances right up against the north Barbee Mill fence. i. We are concerned that if fees are charged for parking in the Quendall development, that visitors and tenants will seek out free parking in the adjacent neighborhood streets especially at Barbee Mill—which already suffers from insufficient street parking for residents and guests. 4) Public Safety Impact a. Cyclist Safety/Pedestrian/Runners Safety—Lake Washington Blvd was never meant to be a major thoroughfare. It is a hilly, scenic route through residential neighborhoods. It has no sidewalks and is very poorly lit at night. In fact, it is already quite dangerous on winter nights to turn into the Barbee Mill development at either 43rd or 44th St as there are no streetlights at either intersection. Lake Washington Blvd (in addition to Barbee Mill streets) is currently used not only by vehicles but also by pedestrians walking their pets and children, joggers and bicyclists. Given that there are no sidewalks and poor lighting along the road, such an increase in cars would not only cause traffic gridlock and backups but would also present a tremendous safety hazard to all using the bike lanes and shoulders for purposes other than driving. i. As a demonstration, a Barbee Mill resident counted more than 140 cyclists using Lake Washington Blvd and crossing 43rd St in a 90- minute period on a recent summer Saturday morning. b. We are concerned that the proposed public access trail and above ground parking lots located right against Barbee Mill North fence would invite evening transient traffic and loitering that could lead to crime. This fence backs up against an existing quiet residential neighborhood. This would not only adversely impact quality of life for Barbee Mill residents but also reduce property values. c. We are concerned that the proposed traffic volume and insufficient infrastructure, would affect the ability of emergency vehicles and first responders to quickly access the Barbee Mill community (and Ripley Lane neighborhood) in the event of an emergency. This puts the lives and health of residents at risk. d. We are concerned that a newly accessible open public space, trails, and parking lots may become an attractive target to a criminal element and would bring an increase risk of crime, vandalism, gang activity, graffiti, Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 7 noise, and other negative and unwanted activity that would put neighborhood homeowners’ safety and security at risk. 5) Light, Glare & Noise Impact a. We have tremendous concern over the amount of light and glare that would be emitted from the proposed high-density residential buildings (proposed to be as high as 90ft) and the evening and night-time restaurant patrons and shoppers in the retail development. We also are concerned about the noise pollution that would come from delivery trucks, giant HVAC units, 2000+ cars/day and ensuing traffic, residential tenants, office workers, retail shoppers and potential bar/restaurant patrons. The light, glare and noise from the proposed Quendall development would adversely impact quality of life and property values for the residents and homeowners of Barbee Mill. 6) Environmental Impact a. The true baseline character of the Quendall property is unknown until the EPA mandated remedial action is fully specified and completed. We believe that the DEIS proposes prematurely, approval of a BINDING site plan for specifications of square feet of various building types, number of parking spaces, roads, traffic and egress to and from the development. Approving the BINDING plan PRIOR TO completed the mandated remedial clean up of the Superfund sight is not only unwise and imprudent but the long term consequences and negative impacts are just too great. As homeowners, this is not the legacy we want to have to live with nor is what we want for our health, our quality of life and our property values. b. Mayor Law declared in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Clean, healthy air; high quality drinking water; and trails and green open spaces are key to keeping our city a great place to live and work. Expanding our tree canopy, creating a better trail system, and protecting our environment provides many benefits to the city and boosts property values by making neighborhoods greener.” Unfortunately, the current proposal for Quendall runs completely contrary to the Mayor’s pledge. c. Superfund Site Carcinogens & The Impact on The Environment—The The EPA has tremendous concerns about the carcinogenic substances on the Quendall site, cleanup and the adverse impact the cleanup would have on the Lake, including fishing and swimming and on several species. We share this concern. (EPA ID# WAD980639215). i. They state: “The primary contaminants of concern are carcinogenic PAHs and benzene. These contaminants are found in the soil and ground water throughout the site. These compounds are found at concentrations well above State cleanup levels for residential and industrial sites. At some locations on the site, creosote product has been found under the surface. In some areas the product is four to six feet thick. Releases of these contaminants to Lake Washington are of particular concern. Lake Washington is used for a variety of recreational purposes including fishing and swimming. The southern end of Lake Washington, including the area where the site is located, is considered prime habitat for rearing of juvenile Chinook, which is a Federal Threatened Species, and other salmon stocks. The Cedar River, which enters Lake Washington approximately two Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 8 miles from the site, supports the largest sockeye run in the contiguous United States. Lake Washington also supports several sensitive environments including habitat for bull trout and the bald eagle. In addition, there are two swimming beaches located within one half mile of the site.” As homeowners at Barbee Mill, we enjoy having access to the shoreline in our development and do not want to see it adversely impacted by release of contaminates nor do we want to put the health of our families at risk. d. We understand that the EPA has jurisdiction over the remediation and cleanup of the Superfund Site at Quendall Terminals. We are extremely concerned about what carcinogenic contaminants will be released into the air and water (through either surface or aquifer transfer) and into our neighborhoods and into our shoreline and May Creek as a result of the initial cleanup process. We are also extremely concerned the adverse impact that the proposed mitigation, landfilling, grading, piling driving and other redevelopment activities will have on our neighborhoods and our residents. Furthermore, the DEIS proposes no dust control measures during the construction process to minimize contaminant transportation to Barbee Mill Homes. We believe strongly that it is NOT PRUDENT OR RESPONSIBLE to approve any BINDING redevelopment proposal for this site until the remediation and cleanup of this critical Superfund site has been thoroughly planned and safely planned, executed and effectively completed by the EPA. To expedite the redevelopment process in order to pursue redevelopment income, puts at risk and adversely affects the health and lives of the immediate neighborhood residents, users of Lake Washington and the existing wildlife. Pursuing binding development agreements BEFORE Superfund cleanup, would be an extremely poor decision with a tremendously risky outcome. e. Wetlands— The overall wetlands in the Quendall property are at least twice the size they are portrayed as in the EIS. In particular in the Southwest corner (a small blue dot labeled “H”) is nearly an acre in total size, which is 50-times the size of what is portrayed in the DEIS. i. The Wetland buffer area for shoreline wetlands should remain at a minimum of 50 ft and should not be reduced for shoreline trails or buildings as currently proposed and shown on figure 2-7. ii. Substituting Wetland “I” or “J”, which is nothing more than a drainage ditch, (per figure 2.6, 2.7 and 2.11) which are separated by Ripley Lane & the railroad tracks and have absolutely no continuity with the Quendall site are not adequate or appropriate solutions for mitigating onsite wetlands throughout the Quendall site including adjacent to Barbee Mill. f. Wildlife—The EIS makes no mention of existing wildlife or mitigation for their loss of habitat from the proposed construction. There are ospreys, eagles, herons, deer, hummingbirds, and other species living in the wetlands and natural habitat of the Quendall property. CONCLUSIONS 1) We recommend that the City does NOT PROCEED with the current BINDING proposal as outlined in the Draft EIS. Of the three alternatives proposed, we believe that the ONLY viable alternative is that of “NO ACTION.” Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 9 2) We certainly hope that Mayor Law meant what he pledged in his 2010 State of The City address when he stated: “By engaging citizens to participate in the process we are starting to create a picture of a city that is a leader in growth management.” a. Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, City Planners and Hearing Examiner, as citizens of Renton we are participating in the DEIS public hearing process and we are loudly saying that the proposals outlined in the DEIS for the Quendall Terminal Redevelopment are in no way in alignment with that goal of responsible growth management and would have tremendous adverse impacts on the surrounding community. 3) Mayor Law also concluded his 2010 State of the City address with these words: “I am optimistic about the future. I am optimistic because people in our community are willing to step up and do what is necessary; because it is through partnerships that we tackle tough issues; and because we never quit planning for the future of this great community.” a. So here we are, the people of Renton stepping up and tackling the tough issues of a poorly thought out, extremely inappropriate and binding DEIS proposal that is completely out of character with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. IF approved and developed, the proposed Quendall development would be a devastating destruction to the shoreline of Lake Washington and to the surrounding community. This proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Property is definitely NOT what we want to see in the future of our great community. 4) We believe that this proposal would have a tremendously adverse impact on the existing adjacent neighborhoods especially our Barbee Mill community. The proposed Quendall development would negatively impact and affect traffic, public safety, quality of life and property values in Barbee Mill and surrounding neighborhoods. 5) As homeowners, taxpayers and citizens of the City of Renton, we urge the City of Renton to NOT approve this binding proposal for the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Proposal. The only one of its alternatives that is viable is that of “NO ACTION!” Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-343 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 52 Suzanne and Donald Orehek 1. See the response to Comment 1 in DEIS Letter 12. 2. See the response to Comment 2 in DEIS Letter 12. 3. See the response to Comment 3 in DEIS Letter 12. 4. See the response to Comment 4 in DEIS Letter 12. 5. See the response to Comment 5 in DEIS Letter 12. 6. See the response to Comment 6 in DEIS Letter 12. 7. See the response to Comment 7 in DEIS Letter 12. 8. See the response to Comment 8 in DEIS Letter 12. 9. See the response to Comment 9 in DEIS Letter 12. 10. See the response to Comment 10 in DEIS Letter 12. 11. See the response to Comment 11 in DEIS Letter 12. 12. See the response to Comment 12 in DEIS Letter 12. 13. See the response to Comment 13 in DEIS Letter 12. 14. See the response to Comment 14 in DEIS Letter 12. 15. See the response to Comment 15 in DEIS Letter 12. 16. See the response to Comment 16 in DEIS Letter 12. 17. See the response to Comment 17 in DEIS Letter 12. 18. See the response to Comment 18 in DEIS Letter 12. 19. See the response to Comment 19 in DEIS Letter 12. 20. See the response to Comment 20 in DEIS Letter 12. 21. See the response to Comment 21 in DEIS Letter 12. 22. See the response to Comment 22 in DEIS Letter 12. 23. See the response to Comment 23 in DEIS Letter 12. 24. See the response to Comment 24 in DEIS Letter 12. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-344 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 25. See the response to Comment 25 in DEIS Letter 12. 26. See the response to Comment 26 in DEIS Letter 12. 27. See the response to Comment 27 in DEIS Letter 12. 28. See the response to Comment 28 in DEIS Letter 12. 29. See the response to Comment 29 in DEIS Letter 12. 30. See the response to Comment 30 in DEIS Letter 12. 31. See the response to Comment 31 in DEIS Letter 12. 32. See the response to Comment 32 in DEIS Letter 12. 33. See the response to Comment 33 in DEIS Letter 12. 34. See the response to Comment 34 in DEIS Letter 12. 35. See the response to Comment 35 in DEIS Letter 12. 36. See the response to Comment 36 in DEIS Letter 12. 37. See the response to Comment 37 in DEIS Letter 12. 38. See the response to Comment 38 in DEIS Letter 12. 39. See the response to Comment 39 in DEIS Letter 12. 40. See the response to Comment 40 in DEIS Letter 12. 41. See the response to Comment 41 in DEIS Letter 12. 42. See the response to Comment 42 in DEIS Letter 12. 43. See the response to Comment 43 in DEIS Letter 12. 44. See the response to Comment 44 in DEIS Letter 12. 45. See the response to Comment 45 in DEIS Letter 12. 46. See the response to Comment 46 in DEIS Letter 12. 47. See the response to Comment 47 in DEIS Letter 12. 48. See the response to Comment 48 in DEIS Letter 12. 49. See the response to Comment 49 in DEIS Letter 12. 50. See the response to Comment 50 in DEIS Letter 12. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-349 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 53 Roger Pearce 1. Your comment is noted for the record. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum included recent traffic counts that reflect peak usage of the Seahawks Training Facility during Seahawks Training Camp. As such, the impacts of the Quendall Terminals Project and associated mitigation measures account for the worst-case condition. Substantial vehicle queuing of 800 feet or more is estimated to occur on Ripley Lane as a result of the additional project traffic without implementation of any project mitigation. With the identified project traffic mitigation, vehicle queuing would be reduced substantially and general traffic operations and queuing would fall within acceptable traffic operational conditions (estimated at approximately 200 feet for the southbound left turn queues on Ripley Lane) (see FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas, Transportation – page 2-1 for details). 2. The DEIS and EIS Addendum assumed that the build-out of the Quendall Terminals site would occur by 2015. The applicant has updated the assumed build-out date to 2017 for this FEIS. As appropriate, analyses included in the FEIS account for the updated build- out date. In particular see Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) for discussions of the supplemental transportation review. Appendix C of this FEIS provides a comparison of traffic counts that were completed as part of the City of Renton’s 2014 Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton and the 2009 PM peak hour traffic counts that were used as the basis for the Quendall Terminals EIS. The 2009 traffic counts from the Quendall Terminals EIS were higher than the 2014 traffic counts (total entering volumes of 7,337 vehicles per hour versus 7,258 vehicles per hour). As a result, it was determined that the growth factors used in the Quendall Terminals EIS were consistent with the 2014 Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton study, and the Quendall Terminals EIS transportation analysis was valid through build-out (see FEIS Appendix C for details and FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures with the Preferred Alternative). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 3. Please see FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Environmental Health 1 – page 2-19) for details on the site cleanup/remediation process with EPA and the estimated timeline for completion. At this point, EPA contemplates issuing the ROD in 2016. EPA and the responsible parties will subsequently enter into an agreement for implementation of the proposed plan. Any in-water cleanup work will need to address the potential impacts to fisheries resources in Lake Washington. 4. Both the DEIS and EIS Addendum assumed an existing/baseline condition subsequent to cleanup/remediation (that is, the condition of the site after remediation has been accomplished). Those documents both solely addressed the impacts of proposed redevelopment on the remediated site. As indicated in the DEIS and EIS Addendum, it is possible that some of the utilities (i.e., the main utility corridors) could be installed as Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-350 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments part of the planned remedial action so that disturbance of the possible soil cap on the Main Property (potentially installed during site cleanup/remediation) and underlying contaminated soils/groundwater would not be necessary. EPA has indicated that the environmental baseline assumptions (post-remediation conditions) represented in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are reasonable given the expected general outcome of the Record of Decision (ROD), if an increased 100-foot shoreline setback is assumed. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes the shoreline setback recommended by EPA. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Environmental Health – page 2-19) for details. 5. The DEIS and EIS Addendum included transportation analyses of the proposed Quendall Terminals redevelopment under two scenarios: 1) with the I-405/ NE 44th Street Interchange Improvements, and 2) without the I-405/ NE 44th Street Interchange Improvements. Mitigation measures were identified to address the impacts associated with each scenario. FEIS Table 2-1 shows transportation operations at key study area intersections under the project, with the project mitigation measures and without the I- 405 Improvements. As shown in Table 2-1, all of the intersections would operate at acceptable LOS E or better. It should be noted that all construction within WSDOT right- of-way or access control areas would require the review and approval by WSDOT prior to construction. See Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page 2-1) for details. 6. Your comment is noted for the record. See the responses to Comments 2 and 3 in this letter. 7. Existing traffic counts were conducted at all of the study intersections in 2009 and 2010 for the DEIS. To supplement these counts and address public concerns, additional traffic counts were collected in August of 2012 while Seahawks Training Camp was in session. Traffic operational analysis and forecasts in the EIS Addendum and this FEIS were adjusted to reflect this worst-case condition that occurs only during limited periods during August. The DEIS and EIS Addendum transportation analyses took into account the individual movements at the study area intersections. See the intersection LOS summary sheets in the DEIS Appendix H and EIS Addendum Appendix E for details. Also see the response to Comment 2 of this letter for details on traffic counts and the consistency with subsequent traffic counts that were completed as part of the City of Renton’s 2014 Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton study. 8. Your comment is noted for the record. 9. Your comment is noted for the record. 10. Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, an updated transportation analysis was conducted for the EIS Addendum (this analysis assumed that the Seahawks Training Facility is in full operation during training camp). Assuming the I-405 Improvements are not implemented, the analysis indicated that with signalization and intersection channelization traffic mitigation improvements that would be funded by the Quendall Terminals Project, the intersection of Ripley Lane and NE 44th Street is forecast to operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour (an average delay of less than 20 seconds per vehicle) (see FEIS Figure 2-2 for an illustration of the I-405/NE 44th Street interchange and Lake Washington Boulevard conceptual improvements Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-351 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments without I-405 Improvements, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). Without any mitigation, all stop-controlled movements at the intersection (i.e., vehicles leaving the site) would operate at LOS F with delays over an average of 100 seconds per vehicle (see FEIS Table 2-1 for details). 11. The 95th percentile queues reported in the DEIS and EIS Addendum represent worst- case scenarios and are an estimate of the queue length that has only a five-percent probability of being exceeded during the PM peak hour. Typical vehicle queues (or average) are generally half of maximum exceeded queues and represent a more typical driver experience. As background traffic was adjusted to account for peak operations during Seahawks Training Facility use, these queuing conditions would be experienced during these limited periods and are considered a worst-case scenario. As Ripley Lane is considered the minor street approach at the Ripley Lane and NE 44th Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection, vehicle queues of this magnitude with the companion average vehicle delay on the approach are within standard accepted operational conditions within an urban area. As these forecasted queues would not block or impede access to driveways that serve the main Seahawks Training Facility, no significant adverse traffic impacts on Ripley Lane would occur. 12. Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS and EIS Addendum, vehicle queuing was analyzed for the Preferred Alternative. As shown in FEIS Table 2-3, vehicle queues on through lanes would be approximately 400 feet and 225 feet, respectively, in the westbound and eastbound directions along Lake Washington Boulevard/NE 44th Street, assuming future I-405 Improvements are completed. 13. The DEIS transportation analysis was updated in the EIS Addendum (see EIS Addendum Appendix E); additional transportation analysis is also included in this FEIS (see Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page2-1) and Appendix B to this document). These analyses represent a comprehensive review of the potential transportation impacts of the Quendall Terminals Project. They specifically account for general traffic growth and traffic from pipeline development; reflect the latest available regional forecasts of population and employment levels throughout the Puget Sound; and, account for peak use of the existing Seahawks Training Facility. The studies consider regional growth and traffic demand in the site vicinity with and without future planned widening of I-405 by WSDOT (including congestion and diversion to parallel corridors). In addition, in 2014 the City of Renton conducted a review of cumulative transportation impacts along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor, including the Quendall Terminals Project and five other known pipeline projects (City of Renton Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton, October 2014). The review concluded that project- specific mitigation without I-405 improvements for Quendall Terminals would be adequate in the near-term and the relocation of the future signalized access into the site from Ripley Lane to N 43rd Street should be considered. As a result, mitigation measures for the Quendall Terminals Project have been modified in this FEIS to allow the City, WSDOT, the applicant and other adjacent property owners to further consider this potential relocation in future design of the interchange system (see FEIS Appendix C for details and FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures with the Preferred Alternative). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-352 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 14. As noted previously, to supplement the existing traffic counts conducted for the DEIS and address public concerns, additional traffic counts were collected in August of 2012, while Seahawks Training Camp was in session. Traffic operational analysis and forecasts in the EIS Addendum and this FEIS were adjusted to reflect this worst-case condition that occurs only during limited periods during August (see EIS Addendum Appendix E and FEIS Appendix B for details). 15. Site access between Lake Washington Boulevard and NE 44th Street is complicated by the existing railroad right-of-way that is currently owned by King County. Under State Law, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) controls all existing and new access rights over railroad rights-of-way. As such, site access is limited to existing approved public or private crossings when approved or vested access is granted under the WUTC. 16. Your comment is noted for the record. Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative that includes lower development density than DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, as well as modifications in building design, setbacks, building height modulation, and shoreline setbacks. The EIS Addendum compares the Preferred Alternative to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, and provides analyses of the impacts of this alternative. From: YVONNE AND GARY PIPKIN [mailto:pipkinsea@msn.com] Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 6:10 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Request to Extend Quendall Terminals Public Hearing & Comment Period Vanessa, Last week we were just made aware of the public hearing for Quendall Terminals scheduled to be held tomorrow (Tuesday, January 4th). Due to the holiday activities and the short notice, my husband and I have not had the time to read the complete 482 page DEIS document to understand the full development impact on the surrounding neighborhoods/area. We hereby request an extension to the public hearing for a few weeks, and to also extend the comment period for a month. Thanks for your consideration to this request. Yvonne and Gary Pipkin 1120 N. 38th St. Renton, WA 98056 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-354 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 54 Yvonne and Gary Pipkin 1. Your comment is noted for the record. The DEIS was issued on December 10, 2010 and included a 30-day public comment period; public comments on the DEIS were initially due on January 10, 2010. Based on feedback and input from the public (such as your comments in this letter), the public comment period was extended twice to provide a 60-day comment period. From:YVONNE AND GARY PIPKIN [mailto:pipkinsea@msn.com] Sent:Sunday, January 16, 2011 1:04 PM To:Vanessa Dolbee Subject:Comments RE: Quendall Terminals Mixed Use Development Vanessa, The purpose of this email is two-fold as follows: 1. Provide the City of Renton with our comments (see attached letter) in regard to the Quendall Terminals Mixed Use Development. A copy of the letter content has also been submitted to the Renton City Council via e-mail today. 2. We request a four week extension to the comment period ending on January 25, 2011. This will allow ample time for everyone to understand this commercial project development and the impact to the neighborhoods. We understand the proposed site is still in the cleanup stage; therefore, there is no hurry to start the project. There is a monthly Kennydale Neighborhood Association meeting scheduled for 7 PM on January 25th. Unfortunately, this meeting occurs just past the current comment period deadline. If the comment period is extended, the sharing of information regarding the Quendall Terminals Mixed Use Development would occur during this monthly meeting. Comment forms would be distributed, collected, and delivered to you. Also, please keep in mind this huge development effort impacts not just Kennydale residents but also Newcastle and Mercer Island residents. x Newcastle Komo News published an article "Public hearing tonight for collection of 7-story, mixed-use buildings near Newcastle" on January 4, 2011 and the link is http://newcastle.komonews.com/content/public-hearing-tonight-collection-7-story-mixed- use-buildings-near-newcastle. x Mercer Island Reporter published an article "Mercer Islanders will not be able to miss the shoreline development proposed in Renton across from Clarke Beach on January 9, 2011. The link is http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/east_king/mir/news/113115189.html Thanks, Yvonne & Gary Pipkin 1 2 3 DEIS Letter 55 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-356 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 55 Yvonne and Gary Pipkin (email 2) 1. Your comment is noted for the record. The DEIS was issued on December 10, 2010 and included a 30-day public comment period; public comments on the DEIS were initially due on January 10, 2010. Based on feedback and input from the public, the public comment period was extended twice to provide a 60-day comment period. 2. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 1 of this letter. 3. Your comment is noted for the record. The DEIS and EIS Addendum analyzed the potential impacts of the project on other jurisdictions, as appropriate. For example, the aesthetics analysis included visual simulations that depicted the potential visual impacts that could occur with redevelopment on the site, including from Clarke Beach Park (Mercer Island) and from the east of the site within the City of Newcastle. The aesthetics analysis also addressed the potential light and glare impacts of the projects from surrounding areas, such as Mercer Island. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum took into account traffic and operations on the nearby, regional transportation system (i.e., I-405). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-358 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 56 Yvonne and Gary Pipkin 1. Your comment is noted for the record. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would also be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s overall scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family buildings. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 2. Please see the response to Comment 1 of this letter for details on the height, bulk and scale of the proposed development. As part of the Preferred Alternative, safe pedestrian circulation would be provided on the site and in the site vicinity, including curbs, gutters and sidewalks within the site, as well as curbs, gutters and sidewalks along the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane adjacent to the project site. Traffic calming treatments would also be provided on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 41st Street (see Transportation mitigation measures H3 and H5 in FEIS Chapter 1). 3. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 1 in this letter. From: Kevin Poole [mailto:kevinpoole@mac.com] Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 2:29 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Chip Vincent Subject: Feedback on Quendall Terminals DEIS Dear Vanessa & Chip, Thank you very much for extending the deadline for submitting feedback on the Draft EIS for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project. Having reviewed both the DEIS itself as well as the comments from the DoE and the EPA, I'd like to offer the following observations on the proposed redevelopment. My comments apply to both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Please note that I am submitting these comments as citizen of the City of Renton, not as a Planning Commissioner. 1. I am concerned by the complete removal of all existing wetland, riparian, and lakeshore habitats on the property during the Superfund remediation process, which would precede the redevelopment of the site. While the existing site is heavily contaminated, it nonetheless serves as important habitat for many species along the lakeshore and in its small riparian area. The DEIS indicates that the loss of these habitats will be mitigated by constructing them on section J of the site (on the other side of Ripley Lane) , but unless they are constructed along the lake itself (so as to preserve the unique character of the habitat), there will be a net loss of shoreline habitat, contaminated or not. The DoE apparently shares this concern. Ideally, a way would be found to reconstruct the habitats within the existing site after the Superfund remediation has occurred. Obviously, with a soil cap in place, such a reconstruction would be technically challenging, but I would like to see a study on the feasibility of such a plan. 2. Throughout the DEIS, the Quendall Terminals site is characterized as "urban," reflecting the designation specified by the City in its Shoreline Master Program. The SMP's "urban" designation, however, applies only to the shoreline area itself, however, not the entire parcel, and does not reflect the actual character of the site in context with the surrounding neighborhood. Broadly characterizing the Quendall site as urban is inappropriate, as the surrounding community has never exhibited elements of a truly urbanized environment. In fact, there are few sidewalks along the streets in Lower Kennydale, which in and of itself suggests a marginal suburban character. Except for a small number of businesses along N. 30th St. in Kennydale, many blocks away from the Quendall site, there are no "urban" services in Lower Kennydale, such as retail establishments and office buildings. No Metro busses run in Lower Kennydale, either, another indication of its marginal suburban status. Note that the I-405 corridor serves as a barrier between the more development 44th St. shopping area and the Lower Kennydale neighborhood. While the Quendall site is just across 405 from the 44th St. area, it should not be considered part of that neighborhood. Regardless of the Quendall site's COR designation, it still exists in a generally low-density residential environment, with no history of office or retail activity, only historical industrial activity, which has now ceased. 3. The transportation impact of either alternative will be significant, especially for Alternative 1. The DEIS does not adequately address how the potential 9,000 additional daily trips will be accommodated by the existing road infrastructure, including the current I-405/NE 44 St. interchange. The I-405 improvements in the area are not currently funded nor expected to take place in the foreseeable future, so the adverse impact on traffic by either alternative will be immediate and prolonged. 4. The developer proposes a setback of 50 ft. from the shoreline, which does not reflect the requirements of the soon-to-be-adopted Shoreline Master Program update, which specifies a 100 ft. setback with vegetative buffer for commercial shoreline development. Regardless of when the project plans were submitted or how they've been vested, a 50 ft. buffer does not reflect modern ecological standards for shoreline development. 5. The overall aesthetics, scope, and scale of either of either alternative are not appropriate to the neighborhood. With the huge Virginia Mason Athletic Center just to the north, it may seem strange to make such a claim, but the VMAC is an extremely unique facility, and should not be considered representative of the type of development the City expects to occur a the Quendall site. The design of the proposed structures at the Quendall site are unimaginative, especially given the precious lakeshore site. They seem to serve one purpose: to maximize the development potential of the site in the easiest possible manner, as cheaply as possible, without considering the aesthetic impact on the neighborhood or the shoreline. The buildings are grossly oversized and too high, and their flat roofs are unattractive. There are little to no setbacks of the building structure, which accentuates their bulk. Compared to a shoreline development like Carillon Point in Kirkland, the Quendall Terminals proposals are truly uninspiring, and some might say, an eyesore. 6. Given the unique position of the site along the Lake Washington shoreline, it's alarming that the developers have chosen a design that does not leverage shoreline recreational opportunities, even low-impact uses such as non-motorized boat launch. The only public shoreline access proposed involves the construction of a shoreline trail, which without being connected to other major trails in the area, is unlikely to be heavily used by the public. Perhaps the developer's intentions are to avoid additional permitting and shoreline mitigation measures by limiting access to the water itself, but again, given the special character of the site, it would be unfortunate not to maximize public access in an environmentally-sensitive manner. I should make clear that I am not opposed to redeveloping the Quendall site into a major commercial/office/residential project. I do think the site is appropriately zoned. But I believe any proposed development must accurately reflect the area's transportation constraints, the existing character of the neighborhood, the site's unique natural setting and ecology, and the potential to maximize shoreline access. The development alternatives described in the Draft EIS do not adequately address these criteria. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Best Regards, Kevin Poole 627 High Ave S Renton WA 98057 206-245-8956 kevinpoole@mac.com Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-361 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 57 Kevin Poole 1. The retention/re-establishment of the wetland area adjacent to Wetland J on the east side of Seahawks Way or Ripley Lane is intended to replace current wetland areas with a wider range of wetland function and value. The expansion of Wetland J is intended to compensate for impacts to on-site wetlands not associated with Lake Washington (Wetlands B, C, E, and G) and is expected to replace functions lost as part of remediation activities (prior to any redevelopment). Wetlands associated with Lake Washington (Wetlands A, D, and F) would be reestablished adjacent to the Lake. EPA will be responsible for review and approval of the proposed wetland replacement plan for the site through a separate process associated with site cleanup and remediation. 2. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in the 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s overall scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family buildings. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 3. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum represent a comprehensive review of transportation impacts of existing and future traffic operations in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site. They specifically account for general and discrete pipeline development (including Barbee Mill, Hawks Landing and the Kennydale Apartments); have been updated to account for peak utilization of the Seahawks Training Facility; consider regional growth and traffic demand in the vicinity with and without future planned widening of I-405; and, reflect the latest available regional forecasts of population and employment levels throughout the Puget Sound. Mitigation measures identified in this FEIS include transportation improvements that would be required to mitigate project traffic impacts with or without WSDOT I-405 Improvements. Without any I-405 Improvements, significant arterial and intersection improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard, at site access intersections, and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramp junctions would be required to be completed as part of the project. The project mitigation measures would minimize potential vehicle trip and traffic impacts associated with the proposed project, and all studied intersections would operate at acceptable levels. As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures. See FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page 2-11), and Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-362 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments In addition, in 2014 the City of Renton conducted a review of cumulative transportation impacts along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor, including the Quendall Terminals Project and five other known pipeline projects (City of Renton Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton, October 2014). The review concluded that project- specific mitigation without I-405 improvements for Quendall Terminals would be adequate in the near-term and the relocation of the future signalized access into the site from Ripley Lane to N 43rd Street should be considered. As a result, mitigation measures for the Quendall Terminals Project have been modified in this FEIS to allow the City, WSDOT, the applicant and other adjacent property owners to further consider this potential relocation in future design of the interchange system (see FEIS Appendix C for details). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 4. Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative that responds to comments received on the DEIS, and continued coordination with and input from EPA and the City of Renton. The Preferred Alternative includes a minimum shoreline setback of 100 feet (compared to 50 feet under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2) and would be consistent with EPA’s recommendations and the 2011 City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (SMP), including the current SMP’s shoreline setbacks and maximum height limits within the shoreline area for the Quendall Terminals site. 5. The Preferred Alternative would include less redevelopment density than DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, as well as modifications in building design, setbacks, building height modulation, and shoreline setbacks. Proposed development would be consistent with the City’s COR zoning for the site, and proposed building design is intended to be coordinated through a variety of details and materials, and provide a human scale with visually interesting streetscapes and façades. Architectural features (i.e., roof slope, façade modulation, building materials, etc.) shall be incorporated into the design of each building and are intended to enhance the compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding uses See EIS Addendum Figures 2-4 and 2-5 for elevations of the Preferred Alternative and Figures 2-8 and 2-9 for conceptual renderings of the Preferred Alternative. Also see FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale – page 2- 23 and Aesthetics/Views – page 2-27). 6. As described in EIS Addendum Section 4.7, Parks and Recreation, the Preferred Alternative would include a total of approximately 10.6 acres of “Natural Open Space Areas” and “Other Related Areas”. Of this area, approximately 3.7 acres would be “Natural Public Open Space Area” including a trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area (if authorized by EPA in the Record of Decision [ROD] or any Natural Resource Damages [NRD] settlement) and natural areas. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail would be relocated to the west of the westernmost buildings, and could be combined with the fire access road. Approximately 6.9 acres of “Other Related Areas” would be provided, including landscaping and sidewalks located throughout the site that would provide a connection between the trail and Lake Washington Boulevard and other areas beyond the site (including the May Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-363 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments Creek Parkway and a future connection to Cougar Mountain). The “Other Related Areas” may or may not meet the City’s standards, regulations, and procedures for open space. Approximately 1.8 acres of indoor and/or outdoor area would be provided onsite for active recreation (i.e., Frisbee, swimming pools, tot lots, bocce ball courts, exercise rooms, active recreation in courtyards, etc.), as approved by the City’s responsible public official (see Parks and Recreation mitigation measure G2 and G8 in FEIS Chapter 1). It is acknowledged that a boat launch is not included in DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, or the Preferred Alternative. Any restrictions on the use of Lake Washington adjacent to the Quendall Terminals site will be stipulated in EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement for cleanup/remediation of the site. 7. Your comment is noted for the record. From: Keith Preszler [mailto:kpreszler@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:10 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Quendall Terminals Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Economic & Community Development, Planning Division I live on Lake Washington Boulevard just south of the proposed Quendall Terminal site. The DEIS describes a project that claims its height and bulk are compatible with the surrounding area. Who exactly do they think they are kidding? "Consistent with the existing urban character of the area"? That is just flat out wrong. The only big bulky thing in the whole area is the Seahawk's practice facility and it stands out like a sore thumb because it is way bigger and bulkier than anything else. Other than it the area has nothing even close in height and bulk. Why does it seem to me that these people have thrown out a whopper of plan and then figure it will give them leeway to back off a bit and still get something still much bigger than people in the neighborhood would like to see. Their second alternative is not significantly different than the first. I vote for option number three which would be to wait for someone else who might have a better plan. They claim they are similar to the Seahawks facility and The Landing. Well, the Seahawks should stand as an exception, and a cautionary one, and The Landing is not nearby and is not situated in the middle of a neighborhood. Even in the new Barbee Mill site the houses are just two stories high, not 6 and 7 stories. Another very big issue for me would be the added traffic. The traffic coming on and off of 405 (exit 7, 44th street) is already heavy. I sometimes walk from my house across the overpass to the businesses on the east side of the freeway and I have nearly been hit by cars. The whole area around the interchange is not at all conducive to pedestrians. Now add 800 housing units, 245,000 square feet of office space, restaurants and retail space and where and how is the resulting traffic going to be accommodated? I've read that the state has no plans, and no money, to make any changes to the interchange. In the draft statement the applicants seem to assume the state will make such changes anyway! Dream on. They also suggest they could run traffic up through Kennydale to the 30th street interchange. That is a ridiculous idea. It shows me that they have no sense of the neighborhood. I also ride my bike along the boulevard bike lanes and down Ripley Lane to connect to the bike path that parallels 405. Our house overlooks Lake Wa Blvd. and on sunny weekends an amazing number of people bike that same route. The Ripley Land section already does not have designated bike lanes in both directions and adding a whole lot more vehicle traffic to that street would make it even more hazardous. All and all I believe the current proposal should be totally rejected. It doesn't seriously consider the problems it raises for the neighborhood and seems to me to be a flagrant attempt to simply build what they want to build without any real concern for the area. Even their slightly scaled down plan is a no go from my point of view. Rejecting their proposal would, I think, send a message to them, and to other developers, that they need to scale down their plans and actually try to build something that fits with the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration of my opinions. Keith Preszler 3818 Lake Wa. Blvd. N. Renton, Wa. 98056 425-226-7987 kpreszler@hotmail.com Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-366 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 58 Keith Preszler 1. Your comment is noted for the record. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would also be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s overall scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family residences. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 2. Your comment is noted for the record. Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS, a Preferred Alternative was developed by the applicant in response to comments on the DEIS, and based on coordination with and input from EPA and the City of Renton. The Preferred Alternative described and analyzed in the EIS Addendum would include less redevelopment density than DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, as well as modifications in building design, setbacks, and building height modulation. 3. Please see the response to Comment 1 in this letter. 4. Mitigation measures in this FEIS include providing frontage improvements along existing public rights-of-way to current City standards. Additional sidewalk improvements, pedestrian crossing accommodations, as well as illumination upgrades would occur along widened sections of Lake Washington Boulevard and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 Ramp intersections as part of signal installation and channelization improvements. Under State law, this project cannot be required to address any existing deficiencies in off-site non-motorized facilities. See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, and FEIS Figure 2-2 for the I-405/NE 44th Street interchange and Lake Washington Boulevard conceptual improvements (without I-405 Improvements). 5. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum assumed two transportation scenarios: 1) future development of the Quendall Terminals site with the WSDOT NE 44th Street/I-405 Improvements, and 2) future development without the NE 44th Street/I- 405 Improvements. Mitigation measures were identified for both scenarios. As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures. See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including transportation-related measures. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum do not recommend routing any project traffic to the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange system. The analyses do indicate that without any I-405 Improvements by WSDOT or intersection improvements Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-367 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments at the ramp junctions at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, project-generated traffic to/from the south of the project site is forecast to shift to access the freeway at the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange as well as other parallel routes east and west of I-405 during peak commute periods. This potential diversion of traffic was found to have no significant adverse traffic impacts on the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor or key intersections that would serve these diverted trips via Burnett Avenue N and N 30th Street (see DEIS Appendix H and EIS Addendum Appendix E for details). Also see the FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation page 2-10) and FEIS Appendix B for additional analysis of the Park Avenue N corridor and the N 30th Street/I-405 ramps. 6. Please see the response to Comment 4 in this letter. A project mitigation measure identified in this FEIS indicates that the proposed project would provide a paved bicycle lane along the east and west sides of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard from the end of the current bike trail along Ripley Lane to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard, or a multi-use path could be developed on one side or separated from Ripley Lane to mitigate potential conflicts between bicycles and the Quendall Terminals site access point on Ripley Lane (see Transportation mitigation measure H10 in FEIS Chapter 1). 7. Your comment is noted for the record. Page 1 Date: 25th January 2011 To: City of Renton Planning Department Attn: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7314 vdolbee@rentonwa.gov From: Name: Len and Pat Reid Address: 1217 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 Phone Number: 425 572 0474 Email Address: lpreid@comcast.net Subject: Public Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal Draft EIS (LUA09-151) I am writing in response to the call for comments concerning the development of the subject property which is adjacent to Barbee Mill where we live. The following are our comments regarding the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal site as outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). As homeowners, tax payers and citizens of the City of Renton, we believe that the proposed and binding Quendall development proposal has tremendous negative and adverse impacts to the local environment, property, the local neighborhood and our Barbee Mill community and should not be approved. 1) Scale Impact a. The proposed size, density and height of the buildings in either alternative are completely out-of-scale with all neighborhoods on the immediate shoreline of Lake Washington, both on the mainland and Mercer Island sides. They completely dwarf the adjoining neighborhood of Barbee Mill and also of the community north of the Seahawks training camp. b. It is completely out of character of the suburban surrounding neighborhoods and brings both a commercial and residential development of a density nothing like anything else in the area. c. The height of the buildings and their footprint seem to exceed anything else on the foreshore of Lake Washington from Renton to Kirkland or Juanita in the north. d. We feel approval of this development will set a precedence that will completely transform the ambiance of Lake Washington and facilitate the eventual destruction of the serene nature of the lake forefront. e. The proposed buildings would be more than 40 ft taller than the height of the Barbee Mill homes and be more than double the height of all nearby residences. These proposed buildings will be about 3/4 the height of the Seahawks training facility and the Boeing Airplane Factory and are totally out of scale with the local communities. 2) Aesthetic Design and Size a. The proposed architectural design resembles an industrial park and does not have the look or the feel of a residential neighborhood; in particular the Renton/Kennydale Hill neighborhoods. The proposed design looks Page 2 more like the Landing, which is sandwiched in between a shopping center and the Boeing airplane factory, which is in an industrial retail location and not on the foreshores of lake Washington. i. The proposal calls for a straight-walled, 2-story parking garage, approximately 1000 ft in length, to traverse the entire Lake Washington frontage of the Quendall development with absolutely no character. There is nothing in the architectural design to break up the negative, visual impact of this two-story wall facing the Lake. This scale of this lake-facing 2-story garage wall is unheard of in residential zoning and lakefront zoning and does not fit the character nor complement the adjacent neighborhoods. ii. There is only a small proportion of the development set aside as “wetland” which will not support the local wildlife that presently inhabit the site. iii. This proposed residential/industrial office park will completely destroy the ambiance and serenity of the lake. b. We feel the nature of the proposed development will have a definite adverse impact on the adjacent property values which will affect us personally and also that of our Barbee Mill neighbors. Had we been aware of the magnitude of this proposed development we would not have purchased and made Barbee Mill and Renton our new home. 3) Density Impact a. This proposal repeatedly describes the Quendall development as “compatible with the existing neighborhoods” (DEIS 3.9-1). We strongly disagree. Barbee Mill to the south has a planned density of 5 residential units per acre and contains no commercial (office or retail) space. The Quendall proposal is for 37 residential units per acre plus up to a ¼ million square feet of commercial space that would accommodate up to 2000 daily visitors. This is approximately 7 times the density of the local residential areas and is not commensurate with the surrounding neighborhoods which are residential. 4) Impact on local Traffic a. Access to the proposed new development is from Lake Washington Blvd, a low density access road. The traffic impact assessment in the DEIS estimated an additional 1400+ automotive trips a day flowing onto Lake Washington Blvd; adding to traffic congestion on the surrounding streets and I-405 exit 7 on-ramps and off-ramps. We do not believe the study addresses these concerns adequately. b. Any study should contend with the proposed development of the Pan Abode property with a hotel and also the adequacy of the access from I- 405 and the immediate Lake Washington Blvd. There are no proposed plans to improve or widen the immediate roads or build the proper egress and ingress access roads to/from the proposed Quendall development. i. The proposal calls for N 43rd St to serve as the primary entrance to the Quendall property. This narrow, residential street is already the primary entrance for the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. This short and narrow street has two stop signs and a railroad crossing and can in no way accommodate the proposed additional 2000 cars per day in addition to the cars of Barbee Mill residents. The DEIS does not list NE 43rd St as a roadway condition concern. It cannot and should not serve as the primary entrance for both Page 3 Quendall and Barbee Mill. The 41st street entrance to Barbee Mill will become an overflow entrance to residents in the proposed development. ii. Lake Washington Blvd. is a narrow, 2-lane, scenic 25 mph road with bike lanes in both margins and many residential driveways. It is already a very busy route for bicyclists, pedestrians and joggers; especially on weekends when literally hundreds of cyclists try to navigate from Lake Washington Blvd to the Ripley Lane access to the bicycle path that extends from that lane. iii. The current entrance to the Quendall development should be stand alone and not from the current entrance to Barbee Mill estate and must consider the access by bicyclists and joggers using the road. iv. There is nothing in the proposal to address grossly inadequate lighting on that region of Lake Washington Blvd and the planned entrance via 43rd Street. It is already quite dangerous on winter nights to turn into the Barbee Mill development at either 43rd or 44th St as there are no streetlights at either intersection. c. Traffic on I-405 at 44th and 30th is already one of the most frequently congested parts of the freeway in both the North and South lanes; not only at peak traffic hours but throughout the majority of the day. The additional influx of 2000 cars per day will exacerbate this already bad situation. d. Any plans to develop this property must be contingent on the widening of the I-405 and replacement of the I-405/NE 44th St Interchange. e. Parking—In the Proposal Alternative 2, there are surface level parking lots for 220 cars up placed right up against the entire north property line for Barbee Mill. This is in no way consistent with land use compatibility in the neighborhood and will adversely impact property values and quality of life. Nor is Proposal Alternative 1, which calls for a 6-story building to be placed right up against the north fence of Barbee Mill. We believe that it is not an acceptable plan to place parking lots, tall buildings and/or delivery entrances right up against the north Barbee Mill fence. 5) Public Safety and Noise Impact a. We are concerned that the proposed public access trail and above ground parking lots located right against Barbee Mill North fence would invite evening transient traffic and loitering that could lead to crime. This fence backs up against an existing quiet residential neighborhood. This would not only adversely impact quality of life for Barbee Mill residents but also reduce property values. b. We are concerned that the proposed traffic volume and insufficient infrastructure, would affect the ability of emergency vehicles and first responders to quickly access the Barbee Mill community (and Ripley Lane neighborhood) in the event of an emergency. This puts the lives and health of residents at risk. c. We are concerned that a newly accessible open public space, trails, and parking lots may become an attractive target to a criminal element and would bring an increase risk of crime, vandalism, gang activity, graffiti, noise, and other negative and unwanted activity that would put neighborhood homeowners’ safety and security at risk. Page 4 d. We have tremendous concern over the evening and night-time restaurant patrons and shoppers in the retail development will have on the quality of life we enjoy in the Barbee Mill development. e. We also are concerned about the noise pollution that would come from delivery trucks, giant HVAC units, 2000+ cars/day and ensuing traffic, residential tenants, office workers, retail shoppers and potential bar/restaurant patrons. The light and noise from the proposed Quendall development would adversely impact quality of life and property values for the residents and homeowners of Barbee Mill. 6) Environmental Impact a. The EPA has tremendous concerns about the carcinogenic substances on the Quendall site, cleanup and the adverse impact the cleanup would have on the Lake, including fishing and swimming and on several species. We share this concern. (EPA ID# WAD980639215). As homeowners at Barbee Mill, we enjoy having access to the shoreline in our development and do not want to see it adversely impacted by release of contaminates nor do we want to put the health of our families at risk. b. We understand that the EPA has jurisdiction over the remediation and cleanup of the Superfund Site at Quendall Terminals. We are extremely concerned about what carcinogenic contaminants will be released into the air and water (through either surface or aquifer transfer) and into our neighborhoods and into our shoreline and May Creek as a result of the initial cleanup process. c. We are also extremely concerned the adverse impact that the proposed mitigation, landfilling, grading, piling driving and other redevelopment activities will have on our neighborhoods and our residents. d. Wetlands— the overall wetlands in the Quendall property are at least twice the size they are portrayed as in the EIS. In particular in the Southwest corner (a small blue dot labeled “H”) is nearly an acre in total size, which is 50-times the size of what is portrayed in the DEIS. i. The Wetland buffer area for shoreline wetlands should remain at a minimum of 50 ft and should not be reduced for shoreline trails or buildings as currently proposed and shown on figure 2-7. ii. Substituting Wetland “I” or “J”, which is nothing more than a drainage ditch, (per figure 2.6, 2.7 and 2.11) which are separated by Ripley Lane & the railroad tracks and have absolutely no continuity with the Quendall site are not adequate or appropriate solutions for mitigating onsite wetlands throughout the Quendall site including adjacent to Barbee Mill. e. Wildlife—The EIS makes no mention of existing wildlife or mitigation for their loss of habitat from the proposed construction. There are ospreys, eagles, herons, deer, hummingbirds, and other species living in the wetlands and natural habitat of the Quendall property. SUMMARY 1) As residents of the adjoining Barbee Mill property we are strongly opposed to the proposed development on the Quendall terminals property and therefore recommend that the City does not proceed with the current stated binding proposal as outlined in the Draft EIS. 2) We feel it is not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhoods and will adversely affect and degrade the quality of life of these neighborhoods. Page 5 3) There has been little to no thought given to the impact of the community, especially that of the current lifestyles of the neighbors including access and use of the local roads for pedestrians, bicyclists and joggers. The effect on the adjoining neighbors that a residential, retail and industrial development of this magnitude will have on all individuals currently residing in the adjoining neighborhoods has not been considered. 4) Nobody has addressed the consequences on the environment of this previously contaminated site, especially during any developmental construction on the site. The effect on wildlife, including fisheries is not adequately addressed. 5) If approved and developed, the proposed Quendall development would be a devastating destruction to the shoreline of Lake Washington and to the surrounding community. This proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Property is definitely not what we want to see in the future of our local community. 6) We believe that this proposal will have a tremendously adverse impact on the existing adjacent neighborhoods especially our Barbee Mill community. The proposed Quendall development would negatively impact and affect traffic, public safety, quality of life and property values in Barbee Mill and surrounding neighborhoods. 7) As homeowners, taxpayers and citizens of the City of Renton, we urge the City of Renton to not approve this binding proposal for the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Proposal. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-373 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 59 Len and Pat Reid 1. See the response to Comment 1 in DEIS Letter 12. 2. See the response to Comment 2 in DEIS Letter 12. 3. See the response to Comment 2 in DEIS Letter 12. 4. See the response to Comment 2 in DEIS Letter 12. 5. See the response to Comment 2 in DEIS Letter 12. 6. See the response to Comment 3 in DEIS Letter 12. 7. See the response to Comment 5 in DEIS Letter 12. 8. See the response to Comment 10 in DEIS Letter 12. 9. See the response to Comment 42 in DEIS Letter 12. 10. See the response to Comment 5 in DEIS Letter 12. 11. See the response to Comment 11 in DEIS Letter 12. 12. See the response to Comment 12 in DEIS Letter 12. 13. See the response to Comment 14 in DEIS Letter 12. 14. See the response to Comment 14 in DEIS Letter 12. 15. See the response to Comment 17 in DEIS Letter 12. 16. See the response to Comment 18 in DEIS Letter 12. 17. See the response to Comment 17 in DEIS Letter 12. 18. See the response to Comment 18 in DEIS Letter 12. 19. See the response to Comment 24 in DEIS Letter 12. 20. See the response to Comment 24 in DEIS Letter 12. 21. See the response to Comment 28 in DEIS Letter 12. 22. See the response to Comment 32 in DEIS Letter 12. 23. See the response to Comment 33 in DEIS Letter 12. 24. See the response to Comment 34 in DEIS Letter 12. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-374 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 25. See the response to Comment 35 in DEIS Letter 12. 26. See the response to Comment 35 in DEIS Letter 12. 27. See the response to Comment 38 in DEIS Letter 12. 28. See the response to Comment 40 in DEIS Letter 12. 29. See the response to Comment 41 in DEIS Letter 12. 30. See the response to Comment 42 in DEIS Letter 12. 31. See the response to Comment 43 in DEIS Letter 12. 32. See the response to Comment 44 in DEIS Letter 12. 33. See the response to Comment 45 in DEIS Letter 12. 34. See the response to Comment 46 in DEIS Letter 12. 35. See the response to Comment 49 in DEIS Letter 12. 36. See the response to Comment 30 in DEIS Letter 12. 37. See the response to Comment 41 in DEIS Letter 12. 38. See the response to Comment 48 in DEIS Letter 12. 39. See the response to Comment 49 in DEIS Letter 12. 40. See the response to Comment 50 in DEIS Letter 12. From: Larry Reymann [mailto:fulmen8@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 1:56 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Rita Moore; Darius Richards; Sue Rooney; Chip Vincent; CHarlotte Spang; tara@paulzimmerman.com; gpwilson123@yahoo.com; merryann7@comcast.net; mujakina_bunny@yahoo.com; gsanchez@naturevision.org; lenticsystem@juno.com; jeanspohn@comcast.net; dorisdandelion@yahoo.com; erikarxj@comcast.net; janisjeh@hotmail.com; mtcdebi@msn.com Subject: Port Quendall Development Hi Vanessa, Wanted to follow up my comments about the three options this proposal for the record in writing, if I may; please let me know if this email is not the appropriate format for that. First off, I want to thank you and the City of Renton's staff for the time and effort they have made to consider the neighborhood's input about this property. It is essential to a successful conclusion and a vibrant, livable community here in Kennydale. Here are my concerns, and I speak for every one of the many neighbors I have spoken with on this. A) A natural shoreline on Lake Washington must be preserved, landscaped with the native species of plants salmon have evolved with in the Pacific Northwest over millennia. These plants host the terrestrial insects critical for the survival of juvenile salmon produced by the runs of sockeye, chinook, and coho that are on the edge of extinction in the waters of May Creek and the Lake Washington/WRIA 8 Watershed. It is essential that we preserve this irreplaceable resource (salmon). Let Kirkland have the concrete, leave us the salmonberry and salal. B) Public access to this shoreline must be preserved. When citizens have the opportunity to see the habitat we are blessed to inherit here, they are quickly motivated to cherish and protect it, for their sake, the sake of their children, and their children's children. It is their heritage as much as ours. C) Anything like the density put forth in Alternatives One or Two will destroy Kennydale. The lesser of the two, Alt. Two, with over 700 housing units and over 30,000 square feet of retail space, is universally seen by my neighbors as an unmitigated disaster for our community. Even the density of a Barbee Mill Development on this parcel would require specific accommodation for mass transit to succeed. Thousands or hundreds or scores of additional single occupancy vehicles on our streets are unacceptable, and create severe problems on many levels. D) Alternative Three, with the Shoreline Protection Plan, Cleanup/remediation of the site, and no new mixed use development is the only rational option at this time. Please continue to keep me informed as plans evolve for Port Quendall. I am convinced that native habitat can be sustained in a way that enhances the property values the owners deserve for their investment and the community in which it is located. Thank you for your time and consideration. With respect, Lawrence Reymann 1313 No. 38th St. Renton, WA 98056 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-376 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 60 Larry Reymann 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. Under the Preferred Alternative, approximately 3.7 acres of “Natural Public Open Space Areas” (i.e. the trail, if authorized by EPA’s Record of Decision [ROD] or any Natural Resource Damages [NRD] settlement, and associated natural area along the trail) would be provided in the western portion of the site, adjacent to Lake Washington. This area would include the establishment of shoreline and wetland habitat that will be implemented in this area during cleanup/remediation of the site – a separate process that is being overseen by EPA. 3. Similar to under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, under the Preferred Alternative, a trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area would be provided in the western portion of the site adjacent to Lake Washington that would be accessible to the public (if authorized by EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement). If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail would be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings, and could be combined with the fire access road. See FEIS Figure 1-1 for the Preferred Alternative site plan, which includes a conceptual depiction of the trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area. Approximately 1.8 acres of indoor and/or outdoor area would also be provided onsite for active recreation (i.e., Frisbee, swimming pools, tot lots, bocce ball courts, exercise rooms, active recreation in courtyards, etc.), as approved by the City’s responsible public official (see Parks and Recreation mitigation measures G2 and G8 in Chapter 1 of this FEIS). 4. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would also be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s overall scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family buildings. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page2-24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. Mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum include transportation improvements that address project traffic impacts with or without WSDOT I-405 Improvements. Without any I-405 Improvements, significant arterial and intersection improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard, at site access intersections, and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramp junctions would be required to be completed as part of the project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this FEIS, no significant impacts on traffic would be expected (see FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-377 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). As indicated on page 3.9-5 of the DEIS, no public transit service is currently provided to the Quendall Terminals site. The closest transit service in the site area is provided via a dial-a-ride service area fixed route service in the vicinity of the N 30th Street/ I-405 interchange. Future potential public transportation in the site vicinity could include Bus Rapid Transit on I-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT, with a flyer top at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange. A project mitigation measure in this FEIS would include promotion of a multimodal transportation network by providing site amenities (i.e., planting strip, street lighting, etc.) and access to future transit zones on Lake Washington Boulevard and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange (see Transportation mitigation measure H9 in Chapter 1 of this FEIS). 5. Your comment is noted for the record. 6. Your comment is noted for the record. From: dariusvicki@msn.com [mailto:dariusvicki@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 4:12 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Quendall Terminals Proposal - LUA09-151 Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner City of Renton - Planning Division 1055 S. Grady Way, 6th Floor Renton, WA 98057 re: Quendall Terminals Draft EIS (LUA09-151) Dear Vanessa: You know me through my role as the president of the Kennydale Neighborhood Association. Today I am writing you, not as a KNA Officer, but rather as a concerned private citizen who has lived here on the Renton shoreline for the past 39 years. I have read the subject DEIS, and also the letter written to you by Paul R. Siegmund on January 20, 2011, "Comments Against Quendall Terminals Draft EIS...". After studying both documents, I am in full agreement with the content, tone, objectivity, and accuracy that is displayed in Mr. Siegmund's letter. Clearly, he has done his "homework" in putting together this document, and I will not attempt to restate his comments here. I also am in full agreement with the Recommendations listed at the end of his letter. Realistically, I don't expect that the subject property would ever become a park; Renton already has done an excellent job of setting aside much of its shoreline for that purpose. I fervently hope that your department and other decision makers within Renton's government will reject the DEIS in its present form, and demand that its writers prepare a version having no omissions, mischaracterizations or outright falsehoods. I further hope that out of this effort, we will see a proposal for a modified, downsized development that is more appropriate for Renton and the Kennydale community. Renton certainly doesn't need the distinction of being the first municipality on Lake Washington to allow a monstrosity in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood. I should add that, with respect to the placement of a hotel on the Pan Abode property directly adjacent to I-405 Exit 7, I envision less of a negative impact to the neighborhood. This site would seem to be appropriate for siting a well-soundproofed hotel, since it is directly on the Interstate and not in the view of many homeowners. Sincerely, Darius F. Richards 3605 Lake Wash. Blvd. N. Renton, WA 98056 425-430-4469 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-379 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 61 Darius Richards 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. Your comment is noted for the record. 3. Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative in response to comments received on the DEIS, and continued coordination with and input from the City of Renton and EPA. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes increased shoreline setbacks and modifications to enhance compatibility with surrounding development (i.e., building height modulation, increased view corridors, setbacks, landscaping, and modified building design). See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale) for details on the proposed project’s height and density and its compatibility with surrounding development. 4. Your comment is noted for the record. From: Tim Riley [mailto:tim@autowashsys.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 7:23 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: A concerned neighbor on the new Port Quendell proposal Hello Ms. Dolbee, My name is Tim Riley and I live at 3607 Lake Washington Blvd N., Renton, WA 98056. I have reviewed the Quendell Terminals Draft EIS and I am against the proposal. It is way too tall – only 30‐35’ maximum should be allowed – not 90 feet. It uses too much of the land and will dramatically impact the surrounding land and water areas. It also allows for access to way too many people for the limited two lane road that is there and is already gridlocked during morning and evening commutes. I am shocked at the scale of the project relative to this small neighborhood and also the impact on the lakeshore and lands that are currently there. The proposal calls for a monstrosity that will destroy a visual gateway to Renton. Very truly yours, Tim Riley (206) 779‐2021 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-381 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 62 Tim Riley 1. Your comment is noted for the record. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would also be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s overall scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be larger and bulkier than surrounding single family buildings. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details. As part of the transportation analysis, mitigation measures are identified in this FEIS that include transportation improvements to address project traffic impacts with or without WSDOT I-405 Improvements. Without any I-405 Improvements, significant arterial and intersection improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard, at site access intersections, and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramp junctions would be required to be completed as part of the project. As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures. With the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this FEIS, no significant impacts on traffic would be expected (FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). In addition, in 2014 the City of Renton conducted a review of cumulative transportation impacts along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor, including the Quendall Terminals Project and five other known pipeline projects (City of Renton Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton, October 2014). The review concluded that project- specific mitigation without I-405 improvements for Quendall Terminals would be adequate in the near-term and the relocation of the future signalized access into the site from Ripley Lane to N 43rd Street should be considered. As a result, mitigation measures for the Quendall Terminals Project have been modified in this FEIS to allow the City, WSDOT, the applicant and other adjacent property owners to further consider this potential relocation in future design of the interchange system (see FEIS Appendix C for details and FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures with the Preferred Alternative). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). From: Chelsea Ryberg [mailto:chelsearyberg@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 4:31 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Igor Parkman Subject: Eastport Shores Association: Quendall Terminal Public Comment Hi Vanessa, As a director of the Eastport Shores Homeowners Association, I have surveyed the association members and am commenting on behalf of the Eastport Shores Association as well as myself. The Eastport Shores Homeowners Association and I, myself, find this proposal (for both alternatives 1 & 2 as presented in the handouts distributed at the Tuesday Jan 25th KNA meeting) unsuitable for the area for the following reasons. 1. View Corridor Impact: The structure would block a substantial part of my home's view corridor to the point that it would affect my home's value. The townhome complex (Eastport Shores) that I live in has 32 units, most if not all of which would have their views obstructed and value impacted by this building. 2. Traffic Impact: There already is a long line to get on 405 both N and S bound during the high traffic times at exit 7. Adding such a high density building would lead to much higher density of people trying to enter and exit the freeway at exit 7. In addition to the freeway impact, Lake Washington Blvd would also see a large increase in traffic that would be inappropriate considering the suburban residential setting and its infrastructure bandwidth. 3. Environmental Impact: The increased pollution from the nearly 2,400 cars the developer is expecting will drive to and park at Quendall Terminal could have a drastic affect on the local wildlife that is currently very plentiful here. In this tiny 3 square miles of Kennydale we have eagles, herons, and incredibly large and diverse aquatic wildlife population in the lake, local ponds and May Creek (extremely close to this development). The creek alone is a critical breeding area for salmon and other wildlife. (Or so I learned in my Renton school district elementary school curriculum.) 4. Market Value Impact: The immediate local market is already so saturated with multifamily residential units (most of which are sitting vacant or unsold in the case of Barbee Mill, Eastport Shores and the Landing) that if the Quendall Terminal residential units were sold as opposed rented, sale prices driven low by high supply and low demand in such a concentrated area could potentially cause the local market to suffer significatly, lowering the values of other local homes such as my own. These are just a few of the major concerns I and the homeowners and residents at Eastport Shores Townhomes have regarding this project. Thank you very much for being so flexible, accommodating and persistent about reaching out to the public on this. -- Chelsea Ryberg Director, Eastport Shores Townhomes Association Eastport Shores Townhomes 4100 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 chelsearyberg@gmail.com | 206-200-8156 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-384 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 63 Chelsea Ryberg 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, a Preferred Alternative was developed by the applicant in response to comments on the DEIS, and coordination with and input from EPA and the City of Renton. While it is acknowledged that certain views would be obstructed by the proposed development, the Preferred Alternative includes modifications to enhance compatibility with surrounding uses, such as larger view corridors and building height modulation. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Aesthetics/Views Response 3 – page 2-30) for details. 3. Mitigation measures are identified in this FEIS that include transportation improvements to address project traffic impacts with or without WSDOT I-405 Improvements. Without any I-405 Improvements, significant arterial and intersection improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard, at site access intersections, and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramp junctions would be required to be completed as part of the project. As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures. With the implementation of the project mitigation measures identified in this FEIS, no significant impacts on traffic would be expected (see FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 4. DEIS Section 3.2, Critical Areas, and Appendix E evaluated the impacts of the proposed project on wildlife habitat. As described in that document, all of the existing vegetation communities would be removed as part of the remediation plan, prior to site development. Based on the cleanup/remediation process to date, this could include capping of the site area west of Lake Washington Boulevard, and re- establishment/expansion of wetland and upland habitat along the shoreline of the lake. EPA will evaluate the impacts of vegetation removal and associated wildlife/habitat impacts due cleanup/remediation activities, as well as the re-establishment of shoreline habitat, through a separate review process. The presumed existing/baseline condition for impact analysis in the EIS is post- remediation, and the majority of the site is expected to consist of bare soil, except along the Lake Washington shore, where a shoreline restoration plan will be implemented. The upland portion of the Main Property could be temporarily re-vegetated via seeding of herbaceous species following remediation to prevent erosion and sedimentation, depending on the anticipated timing of redevelopment. Consequently, redevelopment of the upland areas onsite is not expected to remove significant habitat features or displace wildlife from these areas. With implementation of the project mitigation measures identified in this FEIS, no significant impact on critical areas would be expected (see Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-385 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). 5. Your comment is noted for the record. Per WAC 197-11-448(3), an EIS is not required to discuss economic factors and the fiscal aspects of a project. Market analyses prepared for the project by the applicant concluded that the proposed mixed-use development would be financially viable, and long-term vacancies would not be anticipated. Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 1 Date:Jan17, 2011 To:City of Renton Planning Department Attn: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7314 vdolbee@rentonwa.gov From: Name: Gary R. and Janet L. Sanford Address: 1102 N 42 nd Pl Renton WA 98056 Phone Number: 425 - 276 - 5848 Email Address: jefferyan619@msn.com Subject:Public Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal Draft EIS (LUA09-151) Following are our comments regarding the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal site as outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). As homeowners, tax payers and citizens of the City of Renton, we believe that the proposed and binding Quendall development proposal has tremendous negative and adverse impacts to the environment, property, the neighborhood and our Barbee Mill community and should NOT be approved. 1) Size & Scale Impact a. Scale—The proposed scale, density and height of the buildings in both alternatives are completely out-of-scale, incompatible and inconsistent with all neighborhoods on the entire shoreline of Lake Washington. The typical height limit for buildings along the Lake is 35 ft. The proposed heights and densities exceed those of Downtown Kirkland, Carillon Point, Bellevue and Seattle’s Lake Washington facing neighborhoods. Furthermore, the proposed scale, density and height of the Quendall proposal are inconsistent and incompatible with adjacent neighborhoods, the East facing shoreline of Mercer Island. It will completely dwarf the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. b. The proposed buildings would be more than 40 ft taller than the height of the Barbee Mill homes. And they would be more than double the height of all nearby residences! The proposed buildings are nearly 90 ft in height although they are marked as 77 ft on the applicants elevation drawings, which is 3/4 the height of the Seahawks/VMAC Facility and the Boeing Airplane Factory. Again this is completely out-of-scale with the Barbee Mill neighborhood AND anything else along the Lake Washington shoreline. (DEIS 3.5-12) i. Figure 3.7-2 in the DEIS is an inaccurate and misleading rendering that attempts to conceal the height and visual impact of both proposal alternatives. c. The proposed architectural design resembles an industrial park and does not have the look or the feel of a residential neighborhood. It is certainly “not consistent with the existing urban character” (as claimed in DEIS 3.5- 12) of any of the immediate and nearby residential neighborhoods, 1 2 3 4 5 DEIS Letter 64 See Antezana (Form Letter) Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 2 including Barbee Mill. The proposed scale, density and character would be an eyesore no matter what angle it is viewed from within the adjacent neighborhoods or from lakefront properties along Mercer. d. The proposed design looks more like the Landing, which is sandwiched in between a shopping center and the country’s second largest airplane factory and which is NOT located on the shores of one of the most beautiful lakes in the state and which is NOT located in the middle of an existing residential area. e. The Applicant claims that this area along the Lake Washington shoreline is currently a high-density urban environment. (DEIS 3.5-12) This statement is misleading and couldn’t be farther from the truth as all neighboring areas are completely residential (with the exception of the Seahawks facility.) f. The proposed designs and project scope, scale and density are inappropriate for the shoreline of Lake Washington and do not in any way take advantage of the Lake front location and view. The buildings face each other instead of the Lake. The primary lake view outlook and central lakefront architectural feature is a semi-circular parking lot. i. The Mayor stated in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Renton still has some amazing waterfront property on Lake Washington.”We couldn’t agree more. However, this proposal in no way takes advantage of or capitalizes on this amazing piece of waterfront property. In fact, the proposal looks like the City of Renton has taken a giant step backwards by proposing a self- facing vs. lake facing, residential complex, retail and office park with limited green space and tree canopy. This is not responsible growth. Nor is it responsible stewardship and development of the largest piece of remaining undeveloped land along the shoreline of beautiful Lake Washington. ii. The proposal calls for a straight, walled, 2-story parking garage, approximately 1000 ft in length, to traverse the entire Lake Washington frontage of the Quendall development with absolutely no undulation. There is nothing in the architectural design to break up the negative, visual impact of this two-story wall facing the Lake. This scale of this lake-facing 2-story garage wall is unheard of in residential zoning and lakefront zoning and does not fit the character nor complement the adjacent neighborhoods. g. The proposed development does NOT complement or add value to the existing neighborhoods especially neighboring Barbee Mill. Instead, this development would be tremendously destructive to the property value for the surrounding neighborhoods (including Barbee Mill, Kennydale, Newcastle and the East-facing side of Mercer Island) and detrimental to the quality of life for residents. 2) Density Impact a. This proposal repeatedly and misleadingly (DEIS 3.9-1) describes the Quendall development as “compatible with the existing neighborhoods.” This is preposterous and we strongly disagree. For example, Barbee Mill to the south has a planned density of 5 residential units per acre and contains no commercial (office or retail) space. The Quendall proposal is for 37 residential units per acre plus up to a ¼ million square feet of commercial space that would accommodate up to 2000 daily visitors. 5 cont 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 3 This is approximately 7 times the density of the local residential areas and is in no way “consistent with the existing urban character of the area.” In fact, the existing character of the local area can only accurately be described as residential. Both proposal alternatives, present tremendous compatibility impacts with the surrounding neighborhoods. b. Commercial/residential buildings in Renton and in the greater Eastside area, have tended to have a history of high-turnover, high-vacancy and have not proven to be particularly commercially viable. Our concern is that tenants of apartments and commercial space will have no vested interest in the neighborhood, the community or in the future vision for the city of Renton. And that such a development, could wind up sitting vacant for many years to come. 3) Traffic, Transportation & Parking Impact a. The traffic impact assessment in the DEIS is completely unrealistic. To begin with, the analysis in the DEIS does not take into account the traffic study and analysis for the adjacent Hawk’s Landing (Pan Abode) development, which estimated an additional 1400+ automotive trips a day flowing onto Lake Washington Blvd and adding to traffic congestion on the surrounding streets and I-405 exit 7 on-ramps and off-ramps. i. Before this or any other area development proposal is approved, a new, comprehensive traffic analysis should be done that focuses on the combined traffic impact of: Quendall Terminal property, Hawk’s Landing/Pan Abode property, Seakhawks/VMAC Facility, Ripley Lane neighborhood, Barbee Mill, Kennydale neighborhood, I-405 congestion, commuters trying to bypass 405 congestion on Lake Washington Blvd and the City’s goal of providing direct access to Lake Washington from Park Dr & Sunset Blvd. This comprehensive traffic analysis should reflect all existing, proposed and potential developments and their collective impact on the immediate vicinity and existing neighborhoods. WSDOT analysis, future plans and funding for I-405 must be factored into the traffic analysis and any infrastructure planning. (Reference: Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009) b. The proposal calls for an unacceptable increase in traffic with an estimated 2000 cars a day. Add to that, the estimated 1400 automotive trips a day from the proposed Hawks Landing development. The current infrastructure can in no way support the increases being proposed. There are no proposed plans to improve or widen the immediate roads or build the proper egress and ingress access roads to/from the proposed Quendall development. c. The proposal calls for N 43 rd St to serve as the primary entrance to the Quendall property. This narrow, residential street is already the primary entrance for the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. This un-striped, 2-lane 135-ft long street, which has two stop signs and a railroad crossing, can in no way accommodate the proposed additional 2000 cars per day PLUS the cars of Barbee Mill residents. Furthermore, 43 rd has already become plagued by a dangerous trends of drivers making hazardous u-turns and 3-point turns in the intersection of 43 rd and Lake Washington Blvd. Given all this, it is shocking that the DEIS does NOT list NE 43rd St as a roadway condition concern. NE 43rd St is in no way 12 cont. 13 14 15 16 17 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 4 sufficient to serve as the primary entrance for both Quendall and Barbee Mill it cannot safely and effectively accommodate the additional influx of 2000 cars per day. This proposal will result in intolerable traffic congestion, increased risk of accidents, noise pollution and egress problems for Barbee Mill Homeowners. i. 2000 additional cars/day will translate into 700 to 800 ft of traffic jams along Lake Washington Blvd, 43rd and Ripley Lane. The current infrastructure can in no way handle this increased volume. Lake Washington Blvd. is a narrow, 2-lane, scenic, curving, hilly, 25 mph road with bike lanes in both margins and many residential driveways. It is already extremely difficult to navigate Lake Washington Blvd given the present volume of traffic. Furthermore, it is already difficult with the present volume of traffic to enter or exit the Barbee Mill development at 43rd or 41st during the peak traffic hours and/or on sunny summer days from Lake Washington Blvd. Lake Washington Blvd does not have the capacity to handle the 2000/day proposed additional cars (3400+ if you factor in Hawk’s Landing). And, any serious infrastructure modifications to Lake Washington Blvd would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhoods, the environmentally sensitive May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline. 1. As a demonstration, one need to look no further than the congestion, parking and traffic nightmare that was created on 1/14/11 when hundreds of Seahawk Fans (including children and pets) and their vehicles descended on the intersection of Ripley Lane and Lake Washington Blvd. Cars were parked all over 43rd, 44th, Lake Washington & Ripley Lane. It made it nearly impossible to enter/exit Barbee Mill on 43rd. Fans also jammed the 30 th Bridge and surrounding Kennydale neighborhoods, which has been proposed as an alternate travel route for the Quendall Property. 2. As a demonstration, congestion is also extremely heavy when during the Seahawk Training Days in August, despite the fact that the Seahawks arrange for buses and parking in the Landing in their effort to mitigate what would be the adverse impact of an approximate 2000 cars per day from coming into and parking in the neighborhoods adjacent to Ripley Lane including Barbee Mill. 3. We do not understand why the proposal does not bring traffic directly into the center of the Quendall property via a new access road which would need to be built to cross Ripley Lane and that would be more capable of handling that volume of traffic. However, we are not sure that any development plan that calls for 2000 or more additional cars/day on area roads can be adequately addressed through existing, modified or new infrastructure. 4. The details of the traffic analysis for Lake Washington Blvd at 43rd have been left out of (Table 3.9-1) AND there is no mention in the proposal of improving 43rd. 17 cont. 18 19 20 21 22 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 5 ii. We are concerned that frustrated motorists who are eager to avoid the traffic congestion on Lake Washington Blvd will either make dangerous u-turns and/or choose to use Barbee Mill as a major arterial north/south bypass route for Lake Washington Blvd. The streets within Barbee Mill can in no way accommodate this increased traffic volume. This bypass traffic would present a tremendous risk and inconvenience for Barbee Mill residents. It would hamper ability to safely enter and exit our own neighborhood and residences. The added traffic on Barbee Mill’s streets would create a public safety risks for residents as well as for area pedestrians, joggers, cyclists, children in strollers and pets that enjoy our streets. We are extremely concerned about the added danger of so many motorists trying to navigate the already hazardous blind curve at 42 nd (just shortly after you turn into Barbee Mill from 43rd). The bypass traffic would also generate significant noise pollution. We believe that this proposal and its traffic volume will not only impact Barbee Mill homeowner and community safety but that it will adversely impact and reduce property values and quality of life for Barbee Mill homeowners. d. Traffic on I-405 at 44 th and 30th is already one of the most frequently congested parts of the freeway in both the North and South lanes. Congestion occurs not only at peak traffic hours but throughout the majority of the day. The freeway, just as the neighboring roads, can in no way accommodate an additional influx of 2000 cars per day. Throughout the proposal, the applicant has stated that various traffic impacts could be mitigated through a coordinated effort with WSDOT. However, WSDOT went on record during the DEIS Scoping Summary stating that “the potential I-405/NE 44 St interchange improvements project is not funded, and is not likely to be funded in the foreseeable future; the transportation analysis should not assume that this project is complete or will occur.”(Pg 5-EIS Scoping Summary) We believe that approving a major Quendall development plan without WSDOT commitment, funding, schedule and a plan in place to improve this interchange would have irreversible consequences and would cause a tremendous number of adverse impacts. i. There are scenarios in the proposal that suggest using the I-405 30th street onramp/offramp (exit 6) and then routing cars through the hilly, residential neighborhoods in Kennydale along 30th, 40th, Burnett and Park. This is not a realistic alternative and is equally as dangerous as cars choosing to use Barbee Mill as a shortcut. And it could encourage drivers travelling northbound and southbound on Lake Washington Blvd to take a shortcut through Barbee Mill. e. Transportation—The proposal does not include any plans to develop, improve or encourage public transit in the vicinity. This means that there would be no alternative form of transportation for the estimated 2000+ daily visitors and tenants. It is not an environmentally responsible transportation design solution to place 2000 additional cars onto neighborhood streets and the lakefront in this residential community without providing realistic transportation alternatives. 23 24 25 26 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 6 i. In the Mayor’s 2010 State of the City Address, he declared “I believe that it is vital that we have the right infrastructure in place now to serve the needs of our future. We will continue to work with the state and regional transportation organizations to make critical investments to create an affective transportation system that allows goods and people to move efficiently.”The Quendall proposal does not provide for any investments to create an affective transportation solution in the area NOR does it put the right infrastructure in place to serve the needs of the immediate area and alleviate traffic and noise and air pollution impacts and public safety risks. f. Parking—In the Proposal Alternative 2, there are surface level parking lots for 220 cars up placed right up against the entire north property line for Barbee Mill. This is in no way consistent with land use compatibility in the neighborhood and will adversely impact property values and quality of life. Nor is Proposal Alternative 1, which calls for a 6-story building to be placed right up against the north fence of Barbee Mill. We believe that it is not an acceptable plan to place parking lots, tall buildings and/or delivery entrances right up against the north Barbee Mill fence. i. We are concerned that if fees are charged for parking in the Quendall development, that visitors and tenants will seek out free parking in the adjacent neighborhood streets especially at Barbee Mill—which already suffers from insufficient street parking for residents and guests. 4) Public Safety Impact a. Cyclist Safety/Pedestrian/Runners Safety—Lake Washington Blvd was never meant to be a major thoroughfare. It is a hilly, scenic route through residential neighborhoods. It has no sidewalks and is very poorly lit at night. In fact, it is already quite dangerous on winter nights to turn into the Barbee Mill development at either 43 rd or 44th St as there are no streetlights at either intersection. Lake Washington Blvd (in addition to Barbee Mill streets) is currently used not only by vehicles but also by pedestrians walking their pets and children, joggers and bicyclists. Given that there are no sidewalks and poor lighting along the road, such an increase in cars would not only cause traffic gridlock and backups but would also present a tremendous safety hazard to all using the bike lanes and shoulders for purposes other than driving. i. As a demonstration, a Barbee Mill resident counted more than 140 cyclists using Lake Washington Blvd and crossing 43rd St in a 90- minute period on a recent summer Saturday morning. b. We are concerned that the proposed public access trail and above ground parking lots located right against Barbee Mill North fence would invite evening transient traffic and loitering that could lead to crime. This fence backs up against an existing quiet residential neighborhood. This would not only adversely impact quality of life for Barbee Mill residents but also reduce property values. c. We are concerned that the proposed traffic volume and insufficient infrastructure, would affect the ability of emergency vehicles and first responders to quickly access the Barbee Mill community (and Ripley Lane neighborhood) in the event of an emergency. This puts the lives and health of residents at risk. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 7 d. We are concerned that a newly accessible open public space, trails, and parking lots may become an attractive target to a criminal element and would bring an increase risk of crime, vandalism, gang activity, graffiti, noise, and other negative and unwanted activity that would put neighborhood homeowners’ safety and security at risk. 5) Light, Glare & Noise Impact a. We have tremendous concern over the amount light and glare that would be emitted from the proposed high-density residential buildings (proposed to be as high as 90ft) and the evening and night-time restaurant patrons and shoppers in the retail development. We also are concerned about the noise pollution that would come from delivery trucks, giant HVAC units, 2000+ cars/day and ensuing traffic, residential tenants, office workers, retail shoppers and potential bar/restaurant patrons. The light, glare and noise from the proposed Quendall development would adversely impact quality of life and property values for the residents and homeowners of Barbee Mill. 6) Environmental Impact a. The true baseline character of the Quendall property is unknown until the EPA mandated remedial action is fully specified and completed. We believe that the DEIS proposes prematurely, approval of a BINDING site plan for specifications of square feet of various building types, number of parking spaces, roads, traffic and egress to and from the development. Approving the BINDING plan PRIOR TO completed the mandated remedial clean up of the Superfund sight is not only unwise and imprudent but the long term consequences and negative impacts are just too great. As homeowners, this is not the legacy we want to have to live with nor is what we want for our health, our quality of life and our property values. b. Mayor Law declared in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Clean, healthy air; high quality drinking water; and trails and green open spaces are key to keeping our city a great place to live and work. Expanding our tree canopy, creating a better trail system, and protecting our environment provides many benefits to the city and boosts property values by making neighborhoods greener.”Unfortunately, the current proposal for Quendall runs completely contrary to the Mayor’s pledge. c. Superfund Site Carcinogens & The Impact on The Environment—The The EPA has tremendous concerns about the carcinogenic substances on the Quendall site, cleanup and the adverse impact the cleanup would have on the Lake, including fishing and swimming and on several species. We share this concern. (EPA ID# WAD980639215). i. They state: “The primary contaminants of concern are carcinogenic PAHs and benzene. These contaminants are found in the soil and ground water throughout the site. These compounds are found at concentrations well above State cleanup levels for residential and industrial sites. At some locations on the site, creosote product has been found under the surface. In some areas the product is four to six feet thick. Releases of these contaminants to Lake Washington are of particular concern. Lake Washington is used for a variety of recreational purposes including fishing and swimming. The southern end of Lake Washington, including the area where the site is located, is 34 35 36 37 38 39 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 8 considered prime habitat for rearing of juvenile Chinook, which is a Federal Threatened Species, and other salmon stocks. The Cedar River, which enters Lake Washington approximately two miles from the site, supports the largest sockeye run in the contiguous United States. Lake Washington also supports several sensitive environments including habitat for bull trout and the bald eagle. In addition, there are two swimming beaches located within one half mile of the site.” As homeowners at Barbee Mill, we enjoy having access to the shoreline in our development and do not want to see it adversely impacted by release of contaminates nor do we want to put the health of our families at risk. d. We understand that the EPA has jurisdiction over the remediation and cleanup of the Superfund Site at Quendall Terminals. We are extremely concerned about what carcinogenic contaminants will be released into the air and water (through either surface or aquifer transfer) and into our neighborhoods and into our shoreline and May Creek as a result of the initial cleanup process. We are also extremely concerned the adverse impact that the proposed mitigation, landfilling, grading, piling driving and other redevelopment activities will have on our neighborhoods and our residents. Furthermore, the DEIS proposes no dust control measures during the construction process to minimize contaminant transportation to Barbee Mill Homes. We believe strongly that it is NOT PRUDENT OR RESPONSIBLE to approve any BINDING redevelopment proposal for this site until the remediation and cleanup of this critical Superfund site has been thoroughly planned and safely planned, executed and effectively completed by the EPA. To expedite the redevelopment process in order to pursue redevelopment income, puts at risk and adversely affects the health and lives of the immediate neighborhood residents, users of Lake Washington and the existing wildlife. Pursuing binding development agreements BEFORE Superfund cleanup, would be an extremely poor decision with a tremendously risky outcome. e. Wetlands— The overall wetlands in the Quendall property are at least twice the size they are portrayed as in the EIS. In particular in the Southwest corner (a small blue dot labeled “H”) is nearly an acre in total size, which is 50-times the size of what is portrayed in the DEIS. i. The Wetland buffer area for shoreline wetlands should remain at a minimum of 50 ft and should not be reduced for shoreline trails or buildings as currently proposed and shown on figure 2-7. ii. Substituting Wetland “I” or “J”, which is nothing more than a drainage ditch, (per figure 2.6, 2.7 and 2.11) which are separated by Ripley Lane & the railroad tracks and have absolutely no continuity with the Quendall site are not adequate or appropriate solutions for mitigating onsite wetlands throughout the Quendall site including adjacent to Barbee Mill. f. Wildlife—The EIS makes no mention of existing wildlife or mitigation for their loss of habitat from the proposed construction. There are ospreys, eagles, herons, deer, hummingbirds, and other species living in the wetlands and natural habitat of the Quendall property. 39 cont. 40 41 42 43 44 45 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 9 CONCLUSIONS 1) We recommend that the City does NOT PROCEED with the current BINDING proposal as outlined in the Draft EIS. Of the three alternatives proposed, we believe that the ONLY viable alternative is that of “NO ACTION.” 2) We certainly hope that Mayor Law meant what he pledged in his 2010 State of The City address when he stated:“By engaging citizens to participate in the process we are starting to create a picture of a city that is a leader in growth management.” a. Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, City Planners and Hearing Examiner, as citizens of Renton we are participating in the DEIS public hearing process and we are loudly saying that the proposals outlined in the DEIS for the Quendall Terminal Redevelopment are in no way in alignment with that goal of responsible growth management and would have tremendous adverse impacts on the surrounding community. 3) Mayor Law also concluded his 2010 State of the City address with these words: “I am optimistic about the future. I am optimistic because people in our community are willing to step up and do what is necessary; because it is through partnerships that we tackle tough issues; and because we never quit planning for the future of this great community.” a. So here we are, the people of Renton stepping up and tackling the tough issues of a poorly thought out, extremely inappropriate and binding DEIS proposal that is completely out of character with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. IF approved and developed, the proposed Quendall development would be a devastating destruction to the shoreline of Lake Washington and to the surrounding community. This proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Property is definitely NOT what we want to see in the future of our great community. 4) We believe that this proposal would have a tremendously adverse impact on the existing adjacent neighborhoods especially our Barbee Mill community. The proposed Quendall development would negatively impact and affect traffic, public safety, quality of life and property values in Barbee Mill and surrounding neighborhoods. 5) As homeowners, taxpayers and citizens of the City of Renton, we urge the City of Renton to NOT approve this binding proposal for the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Proposal. The only one of its alternatives that is viable is that of “NO ACTION!” 46 47 48 49 50 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-395 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 64 Gary and Janet Sanford 1. See the response to Comment 1 in DEIS Letter 12. 2. See the response to Comment 2 in DEIS Letter 12. 3. See the response to Comment 3 in DEIS Letter 12. 4. See the response to Comment 4 in DEIS Letter 12. 5. See the response to Comment 5 in DEIS Letter 12. 6. See the response to Comment 6 in DEIS Letter 12. 7. See the response to Comment 7 in DEIS Letter 12. 8. See the response to Comment 8 in DEIS Letter 12. 9. See the response to Comment 9 in DEIS Letter 12. 10. See the response to Comment 10 in DEIS Letter 12. 11. See the response to Comment 11 in DEIS Letter 12. 12. See the response to Comment 12 in DEIS Letter 12. 13. See the response to Comment 13 in DEIS Letter 12. 14. See the response to Comment 14 in DEIS Letter 12. 15. See the response to Comment 15 in DEIS Letter 12. 16. See the response to Comment 16 in DEIS Letter 12. 17. See the response to Comment 17 in DEIS Letter 12. 18. See the response to Comment 18 in DEIS Letter 12. 19. See the response to Comment 19 in DEIS Letter 12. 20. See the response to Comment 20 in DEIS Letter 12. 21. See the response to Comment 21 in DEIS Letter 12. 22. See the response to Comment 22 in DEIS Letter 12. 23. See the response to Comment 23 in DEIS Letter 12. 24. See the response to Comment 24 in DEIS Letter 12. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-396 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 25. See the response to Comment 25 in DEIS Letter 12. 26. See the response to Comment 26 in DEIS Letter 12. 27. See the response to Comment 27 in DEIS Letter 12. 28. See the response to Comment 28 in DEIS Letter 12. 29. See the response to Comment 29 in DEIS Letter 12. 30. See the response to Comment 30 in DEIS Letter 12. 31. See the response to Comment 31 in DEIS Letter 12. 32. See the response to Comment 32 in DEIS Letter 12. 33. See the response to Comment 33 in DEIS Letter 12. 34. See the response to Comment 34 in DEIS Letter 12. 35. See the response to Comment 35 in DEIS Letter 12. 36. See the response to Comment 36 in DEIS Letter 12. 37. See the response to Comment 37 in DEIS Letter 12. 38. See the response to Comment 38 in DEIS Letter 12. 39. See the response to Comment 39 in DEIS Letter 12. 40. See the response to Comment 40 in DEIS Letter 12. 41. See the response to Comment 41 in DEIS Letter 12. 42. See the response to Comment 42 in DEIS Letter 12. 43. See the response to Comment 43 in DEIS Letter 12. 44. See the response to Comment 44 in DEIS Letter 12. 45. See the response to Comment 45 in DEIS Letter 12. 46. See the response to Comment 46 in DEIS Letter 12. 47. See the response to Comment 47 in DEIS Letter 12. 48. See the response to Comment 48 in DEIS Letter 12. 49. See the response to Comment 49 in DEIS Letter 12. 50. See the response to Comment 50 in DEIS Letter 12. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-398 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 65 Sally Scott 1. Please note that no office building are included in DEIS Alternative 2 or the Preferred Alternative. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in the 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s overall scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family residences. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 2. As part of the EIS Addendum, public comments were considered regarding potential transportation impacts south of the project site along Lake Washington Boulevard. Additional mitigation measures are identified in this FEIS to discourage project- generated traffic from travelling to/from the south via Lake Washington Boulevard (see Transportation mitigation measure H5 in FEIS Chapter 1). Although the City of Renton has no adopted residential traffic management program, arterial calming measures could include treatments that create either horizontal or vertical deflection for drivers, including but not limited to chicanes, serpentine raised curb sections, raised median treatments, speed tables, and speed humps. The final design of traffic calming elements would be approved by the City of Renton. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page 2-1) for details on the transportation analysis. 3. Your comment is noted for the record. The DEIS was issued on December 10, 2010, and included a 30-day public comment period; public comments on the DEIS were initially due on January 10, 2010. Based on feedback and input from the public, the public comment period was extended twice to provide a 60-day comment period. While not required by SEPA, an additional 30-day comment period was also provided on the EIS Addendum. Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. 1006 North 42nd Place •••• Renton, Washington 98056 ••••425.502.5195 •••• paulrsiegmund@gmail.com January 20, 2011 City of Renton Department of Economic & Community Development, Planning Division Renton City Hall 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Attn: Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, vdolbee@rentonwa.gov Subject: Comments Against Quendall Terminals Draft EIS (LUA09-151) I submit the following to amplify and to amend the oral comments I provided at the January 4, 2011, public meeting. I object to the content of the draft EIS and to the overall nature of the project it describes. 1. The DEIS describes impacts to surrounding areas which it claims are insignificant but which in fact are enormous as anyone can see. I will show meaningful visual comparisons in this letter, since the application and DEIS failed to do so. 2. The DEIS describes a project which it claims is consistent with existing adjacent uses and will have no significant height and bulk or land use compatibility impacts when in fact the existing surrounds have nothing in common with the project, the rest of Lake Washington has nothing in common with it nor do any other freshwater frontages in King County, and its compatibility impacts would be hugely detrimental to quality of life along Lake Washington. The proposal is, by the way, even taller and denser than anything on the shoreline of Seattle’s decidedly urban (and industrial) Lake Union. The DEIS includes no less than six repetitions of the phrase “consistent with the existing urban character of the area,” and numerous repetitions of “No significant height and bulk impacts would be anticipated” and ”No significant land use compatibility impacts would be anticipated.” All of these statements are preposterous and completely without basis in fact. 3. The Draft EIS document is incomplete and inaccurate in its presentation of important required data. 4. The applicant’s claim to have crafted a meaningful alternative for the purpose of meeting procedural requirements for an EIS is a sham. Alternative 2 is not significantly different from Alternative 1, at about 85% of the size of the original. The purported alternative is equally inappropriate for the character of the local area, and equally aesthetically offensive, as the original proposal. It would have been appropriate for the purpose to consider an alternative proposal in the range of HALF the size of the original in order for the comparisons to have any meaning. Therefore the only acceptable alternative among the three in the Quendall Draft EIS is the third, the no-action alternative. Leave the property alone until a sane, rational, locally appropriate development proposal is crafted. Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [2] The central foundational claim in the impact statement, on which all conclusions have to rest, is FALSE. With similar assertions throughout DEIS: “The proposed height and bulk and setbacks of development … would be consistent with the existing urban character of the area and the applicable provisions of the City of Renton regulations; therefore, no significant height and bulk or land use compatibility impacts would be anticipated.” • Applicant is evidently asserting compatibility with the Seahawks and The Landing. These are not relevant or appropriate, as the Seahawks are unique, and The Landing is too far away to be meaningful. • The proposed design, height, size and density would be more appropriate in a truly urban setting such as near The Landing. • Sandwiched between a shopping mall and the country’s second-largest airplane factory, it would look beautiful. • But not in a residential area, which is the majority of usage of the land along the water in north Renton. • Placing this dense urban conglomerate in the middle of existing otherwise residential area would damage local property value and ruin neighborhood character. • To claim compatibility and consistency with existing uses is an insult to readers’ and taxpayers’ intelligence. This is a residential neighborhood. The project is at least twice the size and density that could be acceptable. Slim the plan down. Lower the roofs. There is no existing character, use, height and bulk that is consistent and compatible with, and therefore would be minimally impacted by, the tallest and most water-proximate new development proposed for Lakes Washington and Union, and all of King County. The language in the DEIS is false, following flawed or absent logic used to construct a desired conclusion. A clear look at the information gathered when examining traffic impact, architecture, density, usage of land in a residential neighborhood, usage of land near a beautiful lake, usage of land that is presently wet and wild and home to wildlife, and when considering light, glare, noise, aesthetics and transportation, in absence of a foregone conclusion reached due to attempt to promote the project, would render the conclusion of minimal impact completely absurd. The city has the authority and the duty to conclude that the proposal is not viable, and therefore to reject it. Do this. The following meaningful visual presentations of the project are significantly different from any presented in the DEIS. These will accurately depict its size, bulk and density: • in comparison to nearby existing structures and uses that are in no way similar to the proposal • and to distant waterside structures and uses that are more so, but still smaller and less dense Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [3] Height, Bulk & Density Elevation View of just two Quendall Buildings, as viewed from the water of Lake Washington, furnished by the Applicant (DEIS figure 2- 5.) • Quendall buildings labeled as 77 ft in height are drawn with dimension marks that do not go all the way to their tops. • Elevator machinery rooms, roof peaks, and final grade are not correctly added. • Buildings are actually close to 90 ft above current grade. Barbee Mill is only 32ft – 35ft. • Seahawks hangar is 115 ft high, and Boeing’s 737 assembly hall is about 110 ft. o This is ¾ of Seahawks and more than twice that of ANY local residences. o The proposal is also three times the length of the Seahawks’ indoor field, and is even longer than the Boeing 737 assembly facility. • Look again at simulated photos, especially from waterside. Proposal dwarfs everything nearby with one exception of completely unique use and character, the Seahawks camp. Figure 3.7-2 of the DEIS, claiming to be a visual simulation of the view of the Quendall proposal and surrounding neighborhood from Clark Park on Mercer Island. The proposed buildings have been manipulated in this view provided on behalf of the applicant to be much lower in height than they actually are. Simulated photo of proposal area, also from Clark Park on Mercer Island. Created using publicly available topographic and photographic data, and Google Earth 3-D building rendering tools. On the left is VMAC, on the right Barbee Mill. Note that Quendall’s 75 foot buildings are more than twice the height of the 35ft adjacent residences and everything else on Lake Washington, with Barbee Mill Seahawks Center Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [4] one exception. Note also that the proposed buildings are nearly as tall as the Seahawks’ center, but appear taller because they are much closer to the shoreline. Google Earth aerial of the Quendall proposal with the Seahawks Center and Barbee Mill adjacent. The red-outlined shape placed over the Quendall property is a 1:1 scale 3-D copy of the large Boeing Renton final assembly plant re-drawn here to emphasize the enormous scale of the proposed construction. Clearly it has no commonality or compatibility with anything nearby. One half of the assembly hall, shown for reference, shot from The Landing, 300 feet away: Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [5] Local Aerial Photos and Renderings from Publicly Available Information These renderings of the Quendall proposals are made using Google Earth polygon tools, with dimensions taken from the applicant’s own submittals in the DEIS. The comparison images are made against publicly available aerial photographs of other local developments, and rotated to allow viewing from similar perspective as the aerial photographs. Readers will note the staggering difference in the size, density and sprawl of the Quendall proposal versus other lakefront developments that are, by most standards, already large. Aerial Photo of Carillon Point, Kirkland, from their website. The image area is approximately 700 feet wide, from left to right (ie north to south.) Google Earth rendering of Quendall Proposal. Same perspective (elevation & azimuth) and width. Note the much greater density, size and height of these buildings. Aerial Photo of Portofino, Kirkland, immediately south of Carillon Point, from their website. The image area is again about 700 feet wide, from left to right (north to south.) Google Earth rendering of Quendall Proposal. Again, similar perspective. Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [6] Examples of Comparable Construction in Renton: Apartments in The Landing • Two miles away from Quendall, The Reserve and the Sanctuary stand shorter than the Quendall proposal, by about 8 feet. They are similar in design, though only 74 feet tall. They have approximately the same lateral density and spacing between buildings. • They are set adjacent to a shopping center and one of the world’s largest airplane factories, on 5-lane arterial roads, in a busy commercial district (not a residential neighborhood). • They are 2,000 feet from the lake shore. Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [7] A survey tour clockwise around Lake Washington of existing developments, with notes on existing, comparable usages and heights Purpose: to search for compatible or consistent uses in the region that might validate the applicant’s claims in support of the Quendall proposal. Preview of the conclusion a few pages onward: There are none. Begin by traveling southward, from the north tip of the lake, along the Eastside shoreline Juanita (Kenmore & King County) • Single family residential • 6-story condo under construction, abandoned. Set back from the lake by a companion 2- story condo. Kirkland north • Juanita Bay, north of downtown: Several 3 & 4-story condos • Public beach park • Single-family residential Kirkland Downtown • 2 & 3 story condo & commercial. Generally one level is set into bank, not visible from street, giving neighbors the illusion that the buildings are 1-2 stories • Marina Park • Away from the waterfront separated by urban roadways: 6 story max, condos. • Nothing on the shore or away from that rivals the Quendall proposal in size, height or density. South of Kirkland downtown: • Commercial 3-4 story • Beach park • Condos, 3 stories above a parking deck, with one level generally not visible from Lake Washington Blvd. • Single-family residential and 1-2-story apartments & condos • Another beach park Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [8] Carillon Point area: • Immediately north, a condo with 3 stories above one parking deck • Carillon Point has o 4 story hotel and office above parking; 1.5 levels are not visible from street. o The two office towers are 6 stories above parking, set back from the lake by smaller buildings. o The two offices are comparable in height, while drastically less dense than the Quendall proposals. These are the only large buildings on Lake Washington, north of Renton. • Portofino, immediately south of Carillon Point: 4 stories. One level is below the street. Points Cities: Single family residential Bellevue • Single family residential except, • Meydenbauer Bay, o Mostly single-family residential o Beach parks & a marina o Some 2-3 story condos with one level below street, set into the bank • More single family residential Newcastle • Beach park & single family residential Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [9] Renton • Residential: single-family and one 3-story condo • Seahawks training center. No doubt a completely unique structure and usage, by any standard; not comparable to anything. 115 feet maximum height • Vacant, wild land at Quendall • Barbee Mill: mostly single family residential. 3 stories, 35 feet max Aerial photo • More single family residential • Coulon Beach Park Zoomed in: 2.5 miles away from Quendall: • Bristol Apartments, 4 stories above 1 parking level, total height 55 feet. • Boeing 737 assembly facility. Maximum height about 110 feet. • Renton Airport Within The Landing--DISTANT FROM THE SHORE OF THE LAKE • Reserve and Sanctuary Apartments. 5 stories above 2 parking levels. Max height 74 feet. (SHORTER THAN QUENDALL) • Commercial and office space, max 2 stories, vacant space, vacant acreage Mercer Island The entire Mercer shoreline is single-family residential except for beach parks and clubs. Project Site, shown AT SCALE Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [10] Continuing north along the Seattle shoreline: Bryn Mawr/Seattle • Single family residential • Marina. Water’s Edge: 5-6 story condo. Blocked from view in the proposal area. • Rainier Beach Marina Seattle • Single family residential • Seward Park • Single family residential • Approximately 3 miles of greenbelt between Lake Washington Blvd and the lake • Single family residential Leschi • Single family residential, mixed with 3-story max, multi-family • Marina & commercial; 2-3 story • Single family residential for 3 miles until almost reaching SR-520 Madison Park • Mostly Single family residential • Some 3-story max multi-family • Two exceptions: residential towers built decades ago before similar construction was disallowed • Parks • 2 story apartments near SR-520 • Portage Bay • Single family residential There is nothing compatible or consistent with the Quendall proposal anywhere on the lake, near of far, not even in previously developed commercial waterfront areas. Emphasizing again: The central claim in the DEIS, that “[t]he proposed height and bulk and setbacks of development … would be consistent with the existing urban character of the area and the applicable provisions of the City of Renton regulations; therefore, no significant height and bulk or land use compatibility impacts would be anticipated,” is demonstrably and objectively false. Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [11] Lake Union A study in density and urban character notionally similar to, but smaller and less dense than the Quendall proposal. This is what ‘impact’ looks like. • Offices up to 8 stories • Shipbuilding & repair • Houseboats • Parks • Seaplane terminal • Wooden Boat Museum • Gas Works Park • Aurora and I-5 bridges Lake Union conceivably qualifies as what the DEIS calls “urban character” placed along a lakeside waterfront. It is filthy, crowded, and has horrifying traffic on it surrounding roads. And even Lake Union has nothing at the scale of the Quendall proposal. Evidence: • Even the new Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center is predominantly 4 & 5 stories, and is across the arterial road from the lake. • Nothing newly built on the shore exceeds 3 stories. • On the west edge of the lake, most buildings are 2-3 stories. There are only two taller buildings built on piers before environmental regulations banned that practice. Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [12] Wetlands & Habitat • The Quendall property is a habitat for numerous individual bald eagles, deer, osprey, hummingbirds, woodpeckers and other unidentified birds. The EIS is deficient in making no mention of their presence or mitigation of their loss of habitat. Sloppy or intentionally misleading Wetland estimates: • Wetland area “H” on the southwest corner of the Quendall property is persistently about 300 ft x 100 ft in size, irregular, thus presently comprising about ¾ of an acre. • This is sixty times (!) larger than the roughly 50 ft x 10 ft oval indicated on the applicant’s maps (figs 2-6, 2-11.) • Other wetlands in the subject property similarly appear upon visual inspection to be significantly larger in reality than the applicant’s maps show them. • The applicant’s proposals for wetland substitution are grossly insufficient as they are: o Orders of magnitude too small in size. They are based on wetland area estimates that are as many as sixty times to small. o Factors of at least two times original should be required. o Too far from the lake, segregated near the 405 freeway, to be useful. [Taken January 16, 2011] Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [13] Traffic • 43rd St & Ripley Ln are inadequate to handle any more traffic. • Inevitable diversions into Barbee Mill via 42nd & 41st would be intolerable and unsafe. • 44th/ exit 7 is inadequate. • WSDOT went on record during the EIS scoping process to say there were no funds available for freeway and ramp improvements, that there would not be funds in the foreseeable future, and that traffic assessments should not assume any state improvements have been made. o The applicant assumed them anyway. o As a hedge, an alternative, they proposed in the DEIS to run traffic through Kennydale to 30th St. Proposing that is absurd and irresponsible. o Proponent also mentioned desired improvements to the intersection of Sunset/Park and Lake Washington Blvd, between Coulon Park and The Landing. These would be irrelevant to traffic flow in the Quendall area. • There is not room for thousands more cars per day past or through the entrance to Barbee Mill • New trails to replace rails in the essentially abandoned rail ROW are a desirable residential use with significant benefits to local area residents. Pedestrian, bike and other users’ safety would be damaged by the traffic load. • Sloppy work. 43rd St –the intersection with the highest impact to me and to my neighbors—is missing from the traffic data tables. When a new project is considered for the Quendall property, access to it should be driven via a new crossing over the rail right of way. Bringing traffic in and out via 43rd St, the entrance to Barbee Mill and not a convenient route to Quendall, is bad for Quendall and for Barbee. The noise and traffic impact to residents only 100 feet from the centerline of that road is high, not insignificant as the DEIS states. Build a new crossing 300 yards or more to the north, aligning with the Ripley Lane turn and with the center of the property. Make Quendall’s traffic Quendall’s problem; back them up in their own space. Seahawks • Now only 100-200 employees work there, on a mostly seasonal basis. • Roughly 20 acre plot, similar in size to Quendall • Exhibition days traffic & crowd load: o On 15 days in August, 25,000 people visited (Seattle Times.) o In two weeks, when school was out and daily traffic was correspondingly lower, 1500-2000 people visited on peak days. o The Hawks mitigated that by letting nobody drive in & park; even their own staff and players parked offsite. o They had buses, security, and remote parking. o And traffic around Lake Washington Blvd, 43rd St and 44th St was a zoo. A normal day at Quendall would be even bigger than a Seahawks exhibition day! Above all, the location of and roads around the Quendall property do not provide the accessibility that would warrant a high density development such as the one proposed. Creating the necessary access, and using that access as proposed, would have extreme impacts on local usage and residents. Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [14] Misleading, absurd claims about the effects of Light and Glare Excerpt from Pg 1-22, Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: “Development of the Quendall Terminals site under Alternatives 1 and 2 would change the site from its existing open, partially vegetated condition to a new mixed-use development. The proposed development would represent a continuation of urban development along the Lake Washington shoreline. The proposed building height and bulk would be generally similar to surrounding uses (i.e. the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility and the planned Hawk’s Landing Hotel) and greater than other uses in the area (i.e. the Barbee Mill residential development). Certain views across the site towards Lake Washington and Mercer Island would be obstructed with the proposed development; however, view corridors towards Lake Washington and Mercer Island would be established and new viewing areas along the lake would also be provided. No significant light, glare, or shadow impacts would be anticipated.” The proponent is incorrect and, if intentional, fraudulent in its mis-statements and understatements of plainly observable facts. The applicant’s unseemly evident desire to avoid acknowledging the reality of the project’s incompatibility with its surroundings is an insult to readers, neighbors and to the city. This adverse-impacts section is false--and not even remotely supportable--for the following reasons: 1. “Surrounding” uses: the site is bounded on four sides. The DEIS cites only two to “surround” it of which one, the Hawks’ Landing hotel, would be a small fraction of one side but which does not exist. Next, the immediately adjacent neighbors at Barbee Mill are mentioned in the “other” category while it is clear there is absolutely nothing similar about the proposal to this purely residential neighborhood. The fourth surrounding neighbor is, of course, the un-mentioned lake which also has no similarities. 2. “Certain views across the site towards Lake Washington and Mercer Island would be obstructed…” is a miraculous understatement designed to obscure the obscene reality of the size of this monster. The project proposal is almost half as high as the hill leading up into Newcastle. The “certain views” are not simply the views from cars passing along Ripley Lane; this complex is bigger than the airplane factory at the industrial end of the lake. The north end of this city will have the lake and the big hill of Mercer Island erased forever. And further, views from Mercer Island to the Eastside will also be obstructed. 3. Light and glare will come at night from the lighting in and on the buildings, and from exterior lights on the roadways and surface parking areas. The property emits no light at this time, and the Seahawks use light rather efficiently. Where there is now darkness at night, the proponent will project light into adjacent homes and green spaces from as high as 90 feet above grade, but the DEIS author has the audacity to claim there would be “no impacts” anticipated. This assessment is impossible! Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [15] Regarding a Public Comment about Land Usage One commenter at the January 4 2011 public meeting spoke about the contextual history of the commercial component of the proposed land usage. He felt that north Renton was underserved by retail and commercial development and noted that a 1981 City of Renton action called for 200,000 square foot development of the Port Quendall property. Unfortunately his comment was outdated, long since overtaken by history. North Renton’s character has long since changed from industrial to residential usage. His comment contained errors in overlooking superseding local events and development projects since 1981 which, when re-examined today, would support the exact opposite conclusion, ie that the Quendall property is precisely NOT appropriate for development of the character and scale currently proposed. • In 1981 Boeing’s factory was several times the size it is today and Boeing had no evident plans to shrink it. The Renton plant was still building the 727, already was building the 737, and the 757 had not even started. Shortly after the resolution the 757 began and progressed its entire life cycle, replacing the 727 in the same spot. The 737 has been redesigned twice also in the same footprint. • That was King County’s jet factory. The Barbee and Quendall industrial operations were still active. There was no evidence in 1981 that the jet factory would one day transform into a commercial development. • 15 years later Boeing began to vacate hundreds of acres of former factory space which quickly became The Landing. • The Landing became the large shopping and apartment development that was once envisioned for north Renton, built on space that was not seen as available in 1981. Now even that has surplus available inside space, plus land not yet developed. • North Renton is now over-served. A huge Quendall commercial complex no longer fits as it might have 30 years ago. It is completely inappropriate and not compatible with or similar to its surrounding area. The 30 year old plans for presuming compatibility have been superseded by residential development, and by the creation of The Landing in the former airplane manufacturing space. Paul R. Siegmund, P.E. [16] Conclusion The central claim in the DEIS, that “[t]he proposed height and bulk and setbacks of development … would be consistent with the existing urban character of the area and the applicable provisions of the City of Renton regulations; therefore, no significant height and bulk or land use compatibility impacts would be anticipated,” is demonstrably and objectively false. Recommendations • Deny the absurd claims of compatibility with and minimal impact to the surrounding area. • Reject the EIS’s claims of such. • Reject the project. • Encourage the developer, or other developers, to return with proposals that are much smaller—a fraction of the currently-proposed size--and that are actually compatible with the local area. • Approve nothing, not even a significantly reduced revision, until or unless credible traffic assessments are completed and appropriate improvements are made. • Approve nothing until the EPA completes public processes and approvals of a viable environmental remediation plan that accounts for present hazards and hazard to persons during remediation and construction. Thank you. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-415 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 66 Paul Siegmund 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s overall scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family residences. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 3. Your comment is noted for the record. 4. Your comment is noted for the record. 5. Your comments are noted for the record. Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative in response to comments received on the DEIS, and continued coordination with and input from EPA and the City of Renton. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes: increased shoreline setbacks and modifications to enhance compatibility with surrounding development (i.e., decreased density, building height modulation, increased view corridors, setbacks, landscaping, and modified building design). See EIS Addendum Chapter 2 for a completed description of the Preferred Alternative, and FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24). 6. Please see the response to Comment 2 in this letter and FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24). Per WAC 197-11-448(3), an EIS is not required to discuss economic factors and the fiscal aspects of a project. 7. Please see the response to Comments 2 and 5 in this letter and FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24). 8. Your comment is noted for the record. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas for details on height, bulk and scale (page 2-23), transportation (page 2-1), views (page 2- 27), and light and glare (page 2-31). 9. Your comment is noted for the record. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-416 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 10. Your comment is noted for the record. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale). The applicant’s architect has confirmed that the maximum building heights represented for DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 in the DEIS, and for the Preferred Alternative in the EIS Addendum were calculated in accordance with applicable City of Renton regulations. 11. Your comment is noted for the record. The methods used for the visual simulations were confirmed in the EIS Addendum, including confirming the accuracy of the 3D model and the camera’s alignment and location. A perspective illustration was also created to demonstrate that the visual simulations accurately depict the views from the selected viewpoints (see EIS Addendum Figure 3.2-2). This illustration shows the view of the proposed development from Mercer Island (Viewpoint 1) and incorporates a 125-foot high scale, broken into 10-foot increments, that extends along the shoreline, through the center of the site, and along the site’s rear property line. As shown in the illustration, the massing of the buildings in the Barbee Mill development (approximately 36 feet high) coincide with floor three and four of the Preferred Alternative. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Aesthetics/Views Response 2 – page 2-29) for details. 12. Your simulation is included in the record. 13. Your simulations are included in the record. 14. Your simulations are included in the record. 15. Your comment is noted for the record. 16. Your photos and comments are noted for the record. 17. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2009; also 2012) Priority Habitats and Species database shows no documented occurrences of priority species or habitats on the site or in the immediate vicinity, other than the presence of wetlands onsite along the lakeshore and listed fish species offsite within Lake Washington to the west and May Creek to the south. Bald eagles (a state sensitive species) may occasionally perch on the site, but the nearest known breeding site occurs on Mercer Island approximately one mile to the west, across Lake Washington. Although indicated as potentially occurring within King County by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012), the gray wolf has not been consistently or reliably documented within King County, particularly within the urbanized Puget Sound lowlands. Known or suspected occurrences of these wolves in Washington center on more remote, forested habitats in the north Cascades, and none have been recorded anywhere near the project site. Ospreys are known to occur in the area, and may use nest platforms constructed along the south end of the Seahawks Training Facility to the north and near the mouth of May Creek on the old Barbee Mill property to the south. DEIS Section 3.2, Critical Areas, and Appendix E evaluated the impacts of the proposed project on wildlife habitat. As described in that document, all of the existing vegetation communities would be removed as part of the remediation plan, prior to site development. Consequently, redevelopment of the upland areas onsite is not expected to remove significant habitat features or displace wildlife from these areas. EPA will evaluate the impacts of vegetation removal and associated wildlife/habitat impacts due Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-417 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments cleanup/remediation activities, as well as the re-establishment of shoreline habitat, through a separate review process. 18. The wetland delineation that was included in the DEIS was conducted according to the methods defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Corps 2008), andDOE’s Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (DOE1997). The method for delineating wetlands is based on the presence of three parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Hydrophytic vegetation is “the macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present.” Hydric soils are “formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.” Wetland hydrology “encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface for a sufficient duration during the growing season” (DOE1997). As noted in the wetland delineation report, there is a network of roads at the Quendall Terminals site, with much of the area previously used for log sorting and storage, resulting in compacted soil on much of the site. Water ponds in these areas due to the compacted soil, but wetland data plots collected in these areas did not contain wetland characteristics for all three parameters. Therefore, although these areas are wet much of the time, they do not meet the parameters noted above to be considered wetlands. 19. Final, detailed plans for the re-establishment of wetlands and their buffers onsite will be developed in accordance with EPA’s Record of Decision (ROD) or any Natural Resource Damages (NRD) settlement as part of the remediation process, prior to proposed redevelopment. EPA will evaluate the impacts of vegetation removal and associated wildlife/habitat impacts due cleanup/remediation activities, as well as the re- establishment of shoreline habitat, through a separate review process. The retention/re- establishment of wetland area adjacent to Wetland J on the east side of Seahawks Way or Ripley Lane is intended to replace current wetland areas with a wider range of wetland function and value than currently exist onsite. New wetland areas adjacent to Wetland J would provide an improvement to habitat quality and overall function from that provided by existing wetlands, which are currently compromised by the presence of soil and water contamination. Habitat function at the expanded Wetland J would also benefit from improved structure and diversity, including emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested habitats. The expansion of Wetland J is intended to compensate for impacts to on-site wetlands not associated with Lake Washington (Wetlands B, C, E, and G) and is expected to replace functions lost as part of remediation activities (prior to any redevelopment). The expansion of Wetland J will diversify and improve wetland habitat on this part of the site over the current mix of invasive species in the wetland buffer, primarily Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass. 20. This FEIS identifies project-related mitigation measures for the site access intersection onto Lake Washington Boulevard at N 43rd Street and Ripley Lane. See FEIS Figure 2- 2 for a sketch of the conceptual improvements at the I-405/NE 44th Street interchange Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-418 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments and Lake Washington Boulevard (without I-405 Improvements). In addition to channelization of Lake Washington Boulevard, project mitigation would include signalization at the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard, I-405 southbound/NE 44th Street, and I-405 northbound/NE 44th Street intersections. As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures. See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including transportation-related mitigation measures. Subsequent to the issuance of the EIS Addendum, the City of Renton completed the 2014 Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton and determined that the Quendall Terminals Project should install a traffic signal at the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection as opposed to the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. However, if the traffic signal and configuration of N 43rd Street have not been constructed prior to WSDOT improvements at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, the City will consider changing the location of this signal to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard. An engineering study will be completed at that time to support the determination of the location for the installation of the traffic signal at either the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection or the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection (see FEIS Appendix C for details). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 21. Accessing the Quendall Terminals site through the Barbee Mill neighborhood, as an alternative to travelling along Lake Washington Boulevard, represents approximately 800 lineal feet between N 41st Street and N 43rd Street. It is not expected that using a circuitous route through the Barbee Mill neighborhood would be a better choice for such a short distance. The traffic operational analysis conducted for the DEIS and EIS Addendum (see Appendices H and E to those documents, respectively) concluded that with implementation of the project mitigation measures and/or I-405 Improvements, forecasted LOS on nearby intersections and arterials would not result in any significant traffic impacts along Lake Washington Boulevard. 22. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum assumed two transportation scenarios: 1) future development of the Quendall Terminals site with the WSDOT NE 44th Street/I-405 Improvements, and 2) future development without the NE 44th Street/I- 405 Improvements. Mitigation measures were identified for both scenarios that would minimize potential vehicle trip and traffic impacts associated with the proposed project and would result in acceptable levels of operation of transportation facilities in the site vicinity. As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures. See FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page2-1), and FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including transportation-related mitigation measures. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-419 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 23. Please see the responses to Comment 22 in this letter. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum do not recommend routing any project traffic to the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange system. The analyses do indicate that without any I-405 Improvements by WSDOT or intersection improvements at the ramp junctions at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, project-generated traffic to/from the south of the project site is forecast to shift to access the freeway at the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange as well as other parallel routes east and west of I-405 during peak commute periods. This potential diversion of traffic was found to have no significant adverse traffic impacts on the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor or key intersections that would serve these diverted trips via Burnett Avenue N and N 30th Street (see DEIS Appendix H and EIS Addendum Appendix E for details). Also see the FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation page 2-10) for additional analysis of the Park Avenue N corridor and the N 30th Street/I-405 ramps. 24. The primary access to the Quendall Terminals site would be via the Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street intersection. As indicated in EIS Addendum Section 4.8, Transportation, and Appendix E, site access via the existing N 43rd Street onto Lake Washington Boulevard would also be provided with an estimated 25 percent of all project traffic using this access. With this estimated distribution of traffic, no significant traffic operational impacts are forecast to occur at the secondary access point via Barbee Mill onto Lake Washington Boulevard (N 43rd Street) with the proposed project 25. Your comment is noted for the record. As described in EIS Addendum Section 4.7, Parks and Recreation, the Preferred Alternative would include a total of approximately 10.6 acres of “Natural Open Space Areas” and “Other Related Areas”. Of this area, approximately 3.7 acres would be “Natural Public Open Space Area” including a trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area along Lake Washington (if authorized by EPA in the Record of Decision [ROD] or and Natural Resource Damages [NRD] settlement) and natural areas. If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail would be relocated to the west side of the westernmost building, and could be combined with the fire access road. Approximately 6.9 acres of “Other Related Areas” would be provided, including landscaping and sidewalks located throughout the site that would provide a connection between the trail and Lake Washington Boulevard and other areas beyond the site (including the May Creek Parkway and a future connection to Cougar Mountain). The “Other Related Areas” may or may not meet the City’s standards, regulations, and procedures for open space. Approximately 1.8 acres of indoor and/or outdoor area would be provided onsite for active recreation (i.e., Frisbee, swimming pools, tot lots, bocce ball courts, exercise rooms, active recreation in courtyards, etc.), as approved by the City’s responsible public official (see Parks and Recreation mitigation measure G2 and G8 in FEIS Chapter 1). A paved bicycle lane would also be provided along the east and west sides of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard from the end of the current bike trail along Ripley Lane to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard or a multi-use path could be developed on one side or separated from Ripley Lane to address potential conflicts between bicycles and the Quendall Terminals site access point on Ripley Lane. 26. The Lake Washington Boulevard/N 43rd Street (Barbee Mill Access) intersection was included in the DEIS and EIS Addendum transportation analyses as Intersection #4. DEIS Tables 3.9-3 and 3.9-4 included data on the LOS impacts of the proposal on Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-420 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments Intersection #4 and other study area intersections. An updated traffic analysis was provided as part of the EIS Addendum (see EIS Addendum Tables 3.4-2 and 3.4-3) and included updated LOS impacts for Intersection #4 and other study area intersections. 27. Site access between Lake Washington Boulevard and NE 44th Street is complicated by the existing railroad right-of-way that is currently owned by King County. Under State Law, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) controls all existing and new access rights over railroad rights-of-way. As such, site access is limited to existing approved public or private crossings when approved or vested access is granted under the WUTC. 28. Peak operations of the adjacent Seahawks Training Facility were incorporated into the updated transportation analysis that was included in the EIS Addendum (see EIS Addendum Appendix H for details). 29. This FEIS identifies project mitigation measures to minimize potential transportation impacts that could result with redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative. With implementation of these measures, traffic facilities within the area would operate within accepted standards, with or without future WSDOT I-405 Improvements. The mitigation measures include: roadway widening, intersection channelization, traffic control treatments, non-motorized improvements, traffic management measures, public transportation opportunities, traffic impact fee requirements, and on-site parking management techniques. In addition, in 2014 the City of Renton conducted a review of cumulative transportation impacts along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor, including the Quendall Terminals Project and five other known pipeline projects (City of Renton Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton, October 2014). The review concluded that project- specific mitigation without I-405 improvements for Quendall Terminals would be adequate in the near-term and the relocation of the future signalized access into the site from Ripley Lane to N 43rd Street should be considered. As a result, mitigation measures for the Quendall Terminals Project have been modified in this FEIS to allow the City, WSDOT, the applicant and other adjacent property owners to further consider this potential relocation in future design of the interchange system (see FEIS Appendix C for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including transportation-related mitigation measures). As indicated in the EIS Addendum, there are no significant transportation- related impacts that cannot be mitigated. (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 30. Lighting sources in the proposed Quendall Terminals mixed-use development would be similar to existing light sources in the site vicinity, and would include interior and exterior building lighting, street lighting, parking lot lighting, walkway lighting, and vehicular lighting. However, the lighting levels on the Quendall Terminals site would likely be higher than on adjacent properties due to the proposed level of redevelopment. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-421 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments Mitigation measures are identified in this FEIS to mitigate potential light and glare impacts with proposed redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative. As indicated in the EIS Addendum, there are no significant light and glare impacts that cannot be mitigated. See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including proposed light and glare mitigation measures. 31. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 2 in this letter and FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2--24) for details on the project’s compatibility with surrounding uses. 32. In response to several comments on the DEIS and continued coordination with the City of Renton and EPA, the Preferred Alternative was developed by the applicant and analyzed in the EIS Addendum. The Preferred Alternative includes several modifications that would enhance the visual character of the development and provide increased views through the site. Certain view corridors through the site would be larger under the Preferred Alternative than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. The proposed view corridor along Street “B” (the main east/west roadway) would be approximately 74 feet wide under the Preferred Alternative (approximately 8 feet wider than the corridor under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2). View corridors along the southern boundary of the site would also be maximized to the extent feasible, similar to under DEIS Alternative 2. These larger view corridors would allow for greater views through the site towards Lake Washington as compared to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. The Preferred Alternative would provide more building height modulation across the site than DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, locating the shortest (four–story) buildings adjacent to the southern property line and the tallest buildings (up to six stories) in the center of the site to minimize potential visual impacts on adjacent uses and increase view opportunities. 33. Please see the response to Comment 30 of this letter. 34. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 2 in this letter and FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for a history of the site’s COR land use designation and zoning classification. 35. Your comments are noted for the record. Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 1 Date:January 17, 2011 To:City of Renton Planning Department Attn: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7314 vdolbee@rentonwa.gov From: Name: Susan MacCaul Siegmund Address: 1006 N 42 nd Pl, Renton, WA 98056 Phone Number: 425-572-5892 Email Address:susansiegmund@me.com Subject:Public Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal Draft EIS (LUA09-151) Following are our comments regarding the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal site as outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). As homeowners, tax payers and citizens of the City of Renton, we believe that the proposed and binding Quendall development proposal has tremendous negative and adverse impacts to the environment, property, the neighborhood and our Barbee Mill community and should NOT be approved. 1) Size & Scale Impact a. Scale—The proposed scale, density and height of the buildings in both alternatives are completely out-of-scale, incompatible and inconsistent with all neighborhoods on the entire shoreline of Lake Washington. The typical height limit for buildings along the Lake is 35 ft. The proposed heights and densities exceed those of Downtown Kirkland, Carillon Point, Bellevue and Seattle’s Lake Washington facing neighborhoods. Furthermore, the proposed scale, density and height of the Quendall proposal are inconsistent and incompatible with adjacent neighborhoods, the East facing shoreline of Mercer Island. It will completely dwarf the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. b. The proposed buildings would be more than 40 ft taller than the height of the Barbee Mill homes. And they would be more than double the height of all nearby residences! The proposed buildings are nearly 90 ft in height although they are marked as 77 ft on the applicants elevation drawings, which is 3/4 the height of the Seahawks/VMAC Facility and the Boeing Airplane Factory. Again this is completely out-of-scale with the Barbee Mill neighborhood AND anything else along the Lake Washington shoreline. (DEIS 3.5-12) i. Figure 3.7-2 in the DEIS is an inaccurate and misleading rendering that attempts to conceal the height and visual impact of both proposal alternatives. c. The proposed architectural design resembles an industrial park and does not have the look or the feel of a residential neighborhood. It is certainly “not consistent with the existing urban character” (as claimed in DEIS 3.5- 12) of any of the immediate and nearby residential neighborhoods, including Barbee Mill. The proposed scale, density and character would 1 2 3 4 5 DEIS Letter 67 See Antezana (Form Letter) Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 2 be an eyesore no matter what angle it is viewed from within the adjacent neighborhoods or from lakefront properties along Mercer. d. The proposed design looks more like the Landing, which is sandwiched in between a shopping center and the country’s second largest airplane factory and which is NOT located on the shores of one of the most beautiful lakes in the state and which is NOT located in the middle of an existing residential area. e. The Applicant claims that this area along the Lake Washington shoreline is currently a high-density urban environment. (DEIS 3.5-12) This statement is misleading and couldn’t be farther from the truth as all neighboring areas are completely residential (with the exception of the Seahawks facility.) f. The proposed designs and project scope, scale and density are inappropriate for the shoreline of Lake Washington and do not in any way take advantage of the Lake front location and view. The buildings face each other instead of the Lake. The primary lake view outlook and central lakefront architectural feature is a semi-circular parking lot. i. The Mayor stated in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Renton still has some amazing waterfront property on Lake Washington.”We couldn’t agree more. However, this proposal in no way takes advantage of or capitalizes on this amazing piece of waterfront property. In fact, the proposal looks like the City of Renton has taken a giant step backwards by proposing a self- facing vs. lake facing, residential complex, retail and office park with limited green space and tree canopy. This is not responsible growth. Nor is it responsible stewardship and development of the largest piece of remaining undeveloped land along the shoreline of beautiful Lake Washington. ii. The proposal calls for a straight, walled, 2-story parking garage, approximately 1000 ft in length, to traverse the entire Lake Washington frontage of the Quendall development with absolutely no undulation. There is nothing in the architectural design to break up the negative, visual impact of this two-story wall facing the Lake. This scale of this lake-facing 2-story garage wall is unheard of in residential zoning and lakefront zoning and does not fit the character nor complement the adjacent neighborhoods. g. The proposed development does NOT complement or add value to the existing neighborhoods especially neighboring Barbee Mill. Instead, this development would be tremendously destructive to the property value for the surrounding neighborhoods (including Barbee Mill, Kennydale, Newcastle and the East-facing side of Mercer Island) and detrimental to the quality of life for residents. 2) Density Impact a. This proposal repeatedly and misleadingly (DEIS 3.9-1) describes the Quendall development as “compatible with the existing neighborhoods.” This is preposterous and we strongly disagree. For example, Barbee Mill to the south has a planned density of 5 residential units per acre and contains no commercial (office or retail) space. The Quendall proposal is for 37 residential units per acre plus up to a ¼ million square feet of commercial space that would accommodate up to 2000 daily visitors. This is approximately 7 times the density of the local residential areas 5 cont 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 3 and is in no way “consistent with the existing urban character of the area.” In fact, the existing character of the local area can only accurately be described as residential. Both proposal alternatives, present tremendous compatibility impacts with the surrounding neighborhoods. b. Commercial/residential buildings in Renton and in the greater Eastside area, have tended to have a history of high-turnover, high-vacancy and have not proven to be particularly commercially viable. Our concern is that tenants of apartments and commercial space will have no vested interest in the neighborhood, the community or in the future vision for the city of Renton. And that such a development, could wind up sitting vacant for many years to come. 3) Traffic, Transportation & Parking Impact a. The traffic impact assessment in the DEIS is completely unrealistic. To begin with, the analysis in the DEIS does not take into account the traffic study and analysis for the adjacent Hawk’s Landing (Pan Abode) development, which estimated an additional 1400+ automotive trips a day flowing onto Lake Washington Blvd and adding to traffic congestion on the surrounding streets and I-405 exit 7 on-ramps and off-ramps. i. Before this or any other area development proposal is approved, a new, comprehensive traffic analysis should be done that focuses on the combined traffic impact of: Quendall Terminal property, Hawk’s Landing/Pan Abode property, Seakhawks/VMAC Facility, Ripley Lane neighborhood, Barbee Mill, Kennydale neighborhood, I-405 congestion, commuters trying to bypass 405 congestion on Lake Washington Blvd and the City’s goal of providing direct access to Lake Washington from Park Dr & Sunset Blvd. This comprehensive traffic analysis should reflect all existing, proposed and potential developments and their collective impact on the immediate vicinity and existing neighborhoods. WSDOT analysis, future plans and funding for I-405 must be factored into the traffic analysis and any infrastructure planning. (Reference: Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009) b. The proposal calls for an unacceptable increase in traffic with an estimated 2000 cars a day. Add to that, the estimated 1400 automotive trips a day from the proposed Hawks Landing development. The current infrastructure can in no way support the increases being proposed. There are no proposed plans to improve or widen the immediate roads or build the proper egress and ingress access roads to/from the proposed Quendall development. c. The proposal calls for N 43 rd St to serve as the primary entrance to the Quendall property. This narrow, residential street is already the primary entrance for the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. This un-striped, 2-lane 135-ft long street, which has two stop signs and a railroad crossing, can in no way accommodate the proposed additional 2000 cars per day PLUS the cars of Barbee Mill residents. Furthermore, 43 rd has already become plagued by a dangerous trends of drivers making hazardous u-turns and 3-point turns in the intersection of 43 rd and Lake Washington Blvd. Given all this, it is shocking that the DEIS does NOT list NE 43rd St as a roadway condition concern. NE 43rd St is in no way sufficient to serve as the primary entrance for both Quendall and Barbee 12 cont. 13 14 15 16 17 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 4 Mill it cannot safely and effectively accommodate the additional influx of 2000 cars per day. This proposal will result in intolerable traffic congestion, increased risk of accidents, noise pollution and egress problems for Barbee Mill Homeowners. i. 2000 additional cars/day will translate into 700 to 800 ft of traffic jams along Lake Washington Blvd, 43rd and Ripley Lane. The current infrastructure can in no way handle this increased volume. Lake Washington Blvd. is a narrow, 2-lane, scenic, curving, hilly, 25 mph road with bike lanes in both margins and many residential driveways. It is already extremely difficult to navigate Lake Washington Blvd given the present volume of traffic. Furthermore, it is already difficult with the present volume of traffic to enter or exit the Barbee Mill development at 43rd or 41st during the peak traffic hours and/or on sunny summer days from Lake Washington Blvd. Lake Washington Blvd does not have the capacity to handle the 2000/day proposed additional cars (3400+ if you factor in Hawk’s Landing). And, any serious infrastructure modifications to Lake Washington Blvd would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhoods, the environmentally sensitive May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline. 1. As a demonstration, one need to look no further than the congestion, parking and traffic nightmare that was created on 1/14/11 when hundreds of Seahawk Fans (including children and pets) and their vehicles descended on the intersection of Ripley Lane and Lake Washington Blvd. Cars were parked all over 43rd, 44th, Lake Washington & Ripley Lane. It made it nearly impossible to enter/exit Barbee Mill on 43rd. Fans also jammed the 30 th Bridge and surrounding Kennydale neighborhoods, which has been proposed as an alternate travel route for the Quendall Property. 2. As a demonstration, congestion is also extremely heavy when during the Seahawk Training Days in August, despite the fact that the Seahawks arrange for buses and parking in the Landing in their effort to mitigate what would be the adverse impact of an approximate 2000 cars per day from coming into and parking in the neighborhoods adjacent to Ripley Lane including Barbee Mill. 3. We do not understand why the proposal does not bring traffic directly into the center of the Quendall property via a new access road which would need to be built to cross Ripley Lane and that would be more capable of handling that volume of traffic. However, we are not sure that any development plan that calls for 2000 or more additional cars/day on area roads can be adequately addressed through existing, modified or new infrastructure. 4. The details of the traffic analysis for Lake Washington Blvd at 43rd have been left out of (Table 3.9-1) AND there is no mention in the proposal of improving 43rd. ii. We are concerned that frustrated motorists who are eager to avoid the traffic congestion on Lake Washington Blvd will either make 17 cont. 18 19 20 21 22 23 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 5 dangerous u-turns and/or choose to use Barbee Mill as a major arterial north/south bypass route for Lake Washington Blvd. The streets within Barbee Mill can in no way accommodate this increased traffic volume. This bypass traffic would present a tremendous risk and inconvenience for Barbee Mill residents. It would hamper ability to safely enter and exit our own neighborhood and residences. The added traffic on Barbee Mill’s streets would create a public safety risks for residents as well as for area pedestrians, joggers, cyclists, children in strollers and pets that enjoy our streets. We are extremely concerned about the added danger of so many motorists trying to navigate the already hazardous blind curve at 42 nd (just shortly after you turn into Barbee Mill from 43rd). The bypass traffic would also generate significant noise pollution. We believe that this proposal and its traffic volume will not only impact Barbee Mill homeowner and community safety but that it will adversely impact and reduce property values and quality of life for Barbee Mill homeowners. d. Traffic on I-405 at 44 th and 30th is already one of the most frequently congested parts of the freeway in both the North and South lanes. Congestion occurs not only at peak traffic hours but throughout the majority of the day. The freeway, just as the neighboring roads, can in no way accommodate an additional influx of 2000 cars per day. Throughout the proposal, the applicant has stated that various traffic impacts could be mitigated through a coordinated effort with WSDOT. However, WSDOT went on record during the DEIS Scoping Summary stating that “the potential I-405/NE 44 St interchange improvements project is not funded, and is not likely to be funded in the foreseeable future; the transportation analysis should not assume that this project is complete or will occur.”(Pg 5-EIS Scoping Summary) We believe that approving a major Quendall development plan without WSDOT commitment, funding, schedule and a plan in place to improve this interchange would have irreversible consequences and would cause a tremendous number of adverse impacts. i. There are scenarios in the proposal that suggest using the I-405 30th street onramp/offramp (exit 6) and then routing cars through the hilly, residential neighborhoods in Kennydale along 30th, 40th, Burnett and Park. This is not a realistic alternative and is equally as dangerous as cars choosing to use Barbee Mill as a shortcut. And it could encourage drivers travelling northbound and southbound on Lake Washington Blvd to take a shortcut through Barbee Mill. e. Transportation—The proposal does not include any plans to develop, improve or encourage public transit in the vicinity. This means that there would be no alternative form of transportation for the estimated 2000+ daily visitors and tenants. It is not an environmentally responsible transportation design solution to place 2000 additional cars onto neighborhood streets and the lakefront in this residential community without providing realistic transportation alternatives. i. In the Mayor’s 2010 State of the City Address, he declared “I believe that it is vital that we have the right infrastructure in place now to serve the needs of our future. We will continue to work with 23 cont. 24 25 26 27 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 6 the state and regional transportation organizations to make critical investments to create an affective transportation system that allows goods and people to move efficiently.”The Quendall proposal does not provide for any investments to create an affective transportation solution in the area NOR does it put the right infrastructure in place to serve the needs of the immediate area and alleviate traffic and noise and air pollution impacts and public safety risks. f. Parking—In the Proposal Alternative 2, there are surface level parking lots for 220 cars up placed right up against the entire north property line for Barbee Mill. This is in no way consistent with land use compatibility in the neighborhood and will adversely impact property values and quality of life. Nor is Proposal Alternative 1, which calls for a 6-story building to be placed right up against the north fence of Barbee Mill. We believe that it is not an acceptable plan to place parking lots, tall buildings and/or delivery entrances right up against the north Barbee Mill fence. i. We are concerned that if fees are charged for parking in the Quendall development, that visitors and tenants will seek out free parking in the adjacent neighborhood streets especially at Barbee Mill—which already suffers from insufficient street parking for residents and guests. 4) Public Safety Impact a. Cyclist Safety/Pedestrian/Runners Safety—Lake Washington Blvd was never meant to be a major thoroughfare. It is a hilly, scenic route through residential neighborhoods. It has no sidewalks and is very poorly lit at night. In fact, it is already quite dangerous on winter nights to turn into the Barbee Mill development at either 43 rd or 44th St as there are no streetlights at either intersection. Lake Washington Blvd (in addition to Barbee Mill streets) is currently used not only by vehicles but also by pedestrians walking their pets and children, joggers and bicyclists. Given that there are no sidewalks and poor lighting along the road, such an increase in cars would not only cause traffic gridlock and backups but would also present a tremendous safety hazard to all using the bike lanes and shoulders for purposes other than driving. i. As a demonstration, a Barbee Mill resident counted more than 140 cyclists using Lake Washington Blvd and crossing 43rd St in a 90- minute period on a recent summer Saturday morning. b. We are concerned that the proposed public access trail and above ground parking lots located right against Barbee Mill North fence would invite evening transient traffic and loitering that could lead to crime. This fence backs up against an existing quiet residential neighborhood. This would not only adversely impact quality of life for Barbee Mill residents but also reduce property values. c. We are concerned that the proposed traffic volume and insufficient infrastructure, would affect the ability of emergency vehicles and first responders to quickly access the Barbee Mill community (and Ripley Lane neighborhood) in the event of an emergency. This puts the lives and health of residents at risk. d. We are concerned that a newly accessible open public space, trails, and parking lots may become an attractive target to a criminal element and would bring an increase risk of crime, vandalism, gang activity, graffiti, 27 cont. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 7 noise, and other negative and unwanted activity that would put neighborhood homeowners’ safety and security at risk. 5) Light, Glare & Noise Impact a. We have tremendous concern over the amount light and glare that would be emitted from the proposed high-density residential buildings (proposed to be as high as 90ft) and the evening and night-time restaurant patrons and shoppers in the retail development. We also are concerned about the noise pollution that would come from delivery trucks, giant HVAC units, 2000+ cars/day and ensuing traffic, residential tenants, office workers, retail shoppers and potential bar/restaurant patrons. The light, glare and noise from the proposed Quendall development would adversely impact quality of life and property values for the residents and homeowners of Barbee Mill. 6) Environmental Impact a. The true baseline character of the Quendall property is unknown until the EPA mandated remedial action is fully specified and completed. We believe that the DEIS proposes prematurely, approval of a BINDING site plan for specifications of square feet of various building types, number of parking spaces, roads, traffic and egress to and from the development. Approving the BINDING plan PRIOR TO completed the mandated remedial clean up of the Superfund sight is not only unwise and imprudent but the long term consequences and negative impacts are just too great. As homeowners, this is not the legacy we want to have to live with nor is what we want for our health, our quality of life and our property values. b. Mayor Law declared in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Clean, healthy air; high quality drinking water; and trails and green open spaces are key to keeping our city a great place to live and work. Expanding our tree canopy, creating a better trail system, and protecting our environment provides many benefits to the city and boosts property values by making neighborhoods greener.”Unfortunately, the current proposal for Quendall runs completely contrary to the Mayor’s pledge. c. Superfund Site Carcinogens & The Impact on The Environment—The The EPA has tremendous concerns about the carcinogenic substances on the Quendall site, cleanup and the adverse impact the cleanup would have on the Lake, including fishing and swimming and on several species. We share this concern. (EPA ID# WAD980639215). i. They state: “The primary contaminants of concern are carcinogenic PAHs and benzene. These contaminants are found in the soil and ground water throughout the site. These compounds are found at concentrations well above State cleanup levels for residential and industrial sites. At some locations on the site, creosote product has been found under the surface. In some areas the product is four to six feet thick. Releases of these contaminants to Lake Washington are of particular concern. Lake Washington is used for a variety of recreational purposes including fishing and swimming. The southern end of Lake Washington, including the area where the site is located, is considered prime habitat for rearing of juvenile Chinook, which is a Federal Threatened Species, and other salmon stocks. The Cedar River, which enters Lake Washington approximately two 34 cont. 35 36 37 38 39 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 8 miles from the site, supports the largest sockeye run in the contiguous United States. Lake Washington also supports several sensitive environments including habitat for bull trout and the bald eagle. In addition, there are two swimming beaches located within one half mile of the site.” As homeowners at Barbee Mill, we enjoy having access to the shoreline in our development and do not want to see it adversely impacted by release of contaminates nor do we want to put the health of our families at risk. d. We understand that the EPA has jurisdiction over the remediation and cleanup of the Superfund Site at Quendall Terminals. We are extremely concerned about what carcinogenic contaminants will be released into the air and water (through either surface or aquifer transfer) and into our neighborhoods and into our shoreline and May Creek as a result of the initial cleanup process. We are also extremely concerned the adverse impact that the proposed mitigation, landfilling, grading, piling driving and other redevelopment activities will have on our neighborhoods and our residents. Furthermore, the DEIS proposes no dust control measures during the construction process to minimize contaminant transportation to Barbee Mill Homes. We believe strongly that it is NOT PRUDENT OR RESPONSIBLE to approve any BINDING redevelopment proposal for this site until the remediation and cleanup of this critical Superfund site has been thoroughly planned and safely planned, executed and effectively completed by the EPA. To expedite the redevelopment process in order to pursue redevelopment income, puts at risk and adversely affects the health and lives of the immediate neighborhood residents, users of Lake Washington and the existing wildlife. Pursuing binding development agreements BEFORE Superfund cleanup, would be an extremely poor decision with a tremendously risky outcome. e. Wetlands— The overall wetlands in the Quendall property are at least twice the size they are portrayed as in the EIS. In particular in the Southwest corner (a small blue dot labeled “H”) is nearly an acre in total size, which is 50-times the size of what is portrayed in the DEIS. i. The Wetland buffer area for shoreline wetlands should remain at a minimum of 50 ft and should not be reduced for shoreline trails or buildings as currently proposed and shown on figure 2-7. ii. Substituting Wetland “I” or “J”, which is nothing more than a drainage ditch, (per figure 2.6, 2.7 and 2.11) which are separated by Ripley Lane & the railroad tracks and have absolutely no continuity with the Quendall site are not adequate or appropriate solutions for mitigating onsite wetlands throughout the Quendall site including adjacent to Barbee Mill. f. Wildlife—The EIS makes no mention of existing wildlife or mitigation for their loss of habitat from the proposed construction. There are ospreys, eagles, herons, deer, hummingbirds, and other species living in the wetlands and natural habitat of the Quendall property. CONCLUSIONS 1) We recommend that the City does NOT PROCEED with the current BINDING proposal as outlined in the Draft EIS. Of the three alternatives proposed, we believe that the ONLY viable alternative is that of “NO ACTION.” 39 cont. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 9 2) We certainly hope that Mayor Law meant what he pledged in his 2010 State of The City address when he stated:“By engaging citizens to participate in the process we are starting to create a picture of a city that is a leader in growth management.” a. Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, City Planners and Hearing Examiner, as citizens of Renton we are participating in the DEIS public hearing process and we are loudly saying that the proposals outlined in the DEIS for the Quendall Terminal Redevelopment are in no way in alignment with that goal of responsible growth management and would have tremendous adverse impacts on the surrounding community. 3) Mayor Law also concluded his 2010 State of the City address with these words: “I am optimistic about the future. I am optimistic because people in our community are willing to step up and do what is necessary; because it is through partnerships that we tackle tough issues; and because we never quit planning for the future of this great community.” a. So here we are, the people of Renton stepping up and tackling the tough issues of a poorly thought out, extremely inappropriate and binding DEIS proposal that is completely out of character with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. IF approved and developed, the proposed Quendall development would be a devastating destruction to the shoreline of Lake Washington and to the surrounding community. This proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Property is definitely NOT what we want to see in the future of our great community. 4) We believe that this proposal would have a tremendously adverse impact on the existing adjacent neighborhoods especially our Barbee Mill community. The proposed Quendall development would negatively impact and affect traffic, public safety, quality of life and property values in Barbee Mill and surrounding neighborhoods. 5) As homeowners, taxpayers and citizens of the City of Renton, we urge the City of Renton to NOT approve this binding proposal for the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Proposal. The only one of its alternatives that is viable is that of “NO ACTION!” 47 48 49 50 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-431 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 67 Susan Siegmund 1. See the response to Comment 1 in DEIS Letter 12. 2. See the response to Comment 2 in DEIS Letter 12. 3. See the response to Comment 3 in DEIS Letter 12. 4. See the response to Comment 4 in DEIS Letter 12. 5. See the response to Comment 5 in DEIS Letter 12. 6. See the response to Comment 6 in DEIS Letter 12. 7. See the response to Comment 7 in DEIS Letter 12. 8. See the response to Comment 8 in DEIS Letter 12. 9. See the response to Comment 9 in DEIS Letter 12. 10. See the response to Comment 10 in DEIS Letter 12. 11. See the response to Comment 11 in DEIS Letter 12. 12. See the response to Comment 12 in DEIS Letter 12. 13. See the response to Comment 13 in DEIS Letter 12. 14. See the response to Comment 14 in DEIS Letter 12. 15. See the response to Comment 15 in DEIS Letter 12. 16. See the response to Comment 16 in DEIS Letter 12. 17. See the response to Comment 17 in DEIS Letter 12. 18. See the response to Comment 18 in DEIS Letter 12. 19. See the response to Comment 19 in DEIS Letter 12. 20. See the response to Comment 20 in DEIS Letter 12. 21. See the response to Comment 21 in DEIS Letter 12. 22. See the response to Comment 22 in DEIS Letter 12. 23. See the response to Comment 23 in DEIS Letter 12. 24. See the response to Comment 24 in DEIS Letter 12. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-432 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 25. See the response to Comment 25 in DEIS Letter 12. 26. See the response to Comment 26 in DEIS Letter 12. 27. See the response to Comment 27 in DEIS Letter 12. 28. See the response to Comment 28 in DEIS Letter 12. 29. See the response to Comment 29 in DEIS Letter 12. 30. See the response to Comment 30 in DEIS Letter 12. 31. See the response to Comment 31 in DEIS Letter 12. 32. See the response to Comment 32 in DEIS Letter 12. 33. See the response to Comment 33 in DEIS Letter 12. 34. See the response to Comment 34 in DEIS Letter 12. 35. See the response to Comment 35 in DEIS Letter 12. 36. See the response to Comment 36 in DEIS Letter 12. 37. See the response to Comment 37 in DEIS Letter 12. 38. See the response to Comment 38 in DEIS Letter 12. 39. See the response to Comment 39 in DEIS Letter 12. 40. See the response to Comment 40 in DEIS Letter 12. 41. See the response to Comment 41 in DEIS Letter 12. 42. See the response to Comment 42 in DEIS Letter 12. 43. See the response to Comment 43 in DEIS Letter 12. 44. See the response to Comment 44 in DEIS Letter 12. 45. See the response to Comment 45 in DEIS Letter 12. 46. See the response to Comment 46 in DEIS Letter 12. 47. See the response to Comment 47 in DEIS Letter 12. 48. See the response to Comment 48 in DEIS Letter 12. 49. See the response to Comment 49 in DEIS Letter 12. 50. See the response to Comment 50 in DEIS Letter 12. From:Winnie Sihon [mailto:wsihon@comcast.net] Sent:Tuesday, January 04, 2011 12:49 PM To:Vanessa Dolbee Subject:Re: Quendall site development Dear Ms Dolbee, As longtime Eastside residents in Bellevue and now in Barbee Mill, we wish to express our concerns for the development of this waterfront location. Originally this land was to be similar to Carollan Point in Kirkland with shops, restaurants, some housing and some business, spacious and luxurious. Our big complaint for the proposed development is that it is too dense, generating too much traffic, too many cars and the need for too much parking. The visual blight will be horrendous as well as the environmental impact of that much construction and density. Think about Whistler village or Carollan Point rather than "The Landing" or downtown Renton. The last open land should be a place of beauty. Please keep us informed of any decisions. Winnie and Yura Sihon 1211 N. 42nd Place, Renton, WA, 98056 1 DEIS Letter 68 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-434 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 68 Winnie and Yura Sihon 1. Your comments are noted for the record. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s overall scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family residences. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page2-24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. Mitigation measures identified in this FEIS include transportation improvements that would address project traffic impacts with or without WSDOT I-405 Improvements. Without any I-405 Improvements, significant arterial and intersection improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard, at site access intersections, and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramp junctions would be required to be completed as part of the project. As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures. The project mitigation measures would minimize potential vehicle trip and traffic impacts associated with the proposed project, and result in acceptable operation of transportation facilities in the area. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page 2-1) for details. In addition, in 2014 the City of Renton conducted a review of cumulative transportation impacts along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor, including the Quendall Terminals Project and five other known pipeline projects (City of Renton Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton, October 2014). The review concluded that project specific mitigation without I-405 improvements for Quendall Terminals would be adequate in the near-term and the relocation of the future signalized access into the site from Ripley Lane to N 43rd Street should be considered. As a result, mitigation measures for the Quendall Terminals Project have been modified in this FEIS to allow the City, WSDOT, the applicant and other adjacent property owners to further consider this potential relocation in future design of the interchange system (see FEIS Appendix C for details and FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures with the Preferred Alternative). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). From: Susan stow [mailto:stows@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:09 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: regarding quendall terminals From : Susan Stow 1309 nth 36th st Renton Wa 425‐793‐5062 First and foremost I would like the City of Renton to revisit the urban plan for Kennydale. The reason is simple, Kennydale is going through massive changes, lots are being sold and instead of one house we have 3 or 4 being built. That means at least 2 cars per house and we have to absorb the extra traffic already. So when you say you are going to add 2,000 more cars that is in addition to the extra that we as a growing community have to allow for. I would also like to caution you on developing an area when you have a draw of a sports team. Kirkland did that and look what happened to the retail stores surrounding the old Seahawks facility. Sports teams come and go and we the residents will suffer. If you look to the east side of 405 at exit 7, they already have a motel and retail and I don't think it has become a "destination ". On a final note, the City of Renton also assured us that the new Seahawk facility would not affect the traffic at exit 7. Can you explain to me why the Renton Police have to go and stop traffic on Lake Washington Blvd to allow the traffic coming from the facility? So during the spring and summer it takes me at least 20 minutes to go from 44th to 40th. Thank you, Susan Stow. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-436 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 69 Susan Stow 1. Your comment is noted for the record. The City has begun a Community Planning Process and has designated ten community planning areas, including Kennydale. At this time, the City has completed two Community Plans: one for the City Center and a second for the Benson Community. A schedule has not been established for the Kennydale Community Plan; however, the Kennydale community planning area has been identified and a community plan will be prepared in the future. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum represented a comprehensive review of transportation impacts of existing and future traffic operations in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site. Mitigation measures are identified in this FEIS including transportation improvements to address potential project traffic impacts with or without WSDOT I-405 Improvements. Without any I-405 Improvements, significant arterial and intersection improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard, at site access intersections, and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramp junctions would be required to be completed as part of the project. With the implementation of project mitigation measures, no significant transportation-related impacts would be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page 2-1) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 2. Your comment is noted for the record. 3. Your comment is noted for the record. 4. Your comment is noted for the record. The Seahawks request police during training camp for security purposes. These police officers are paid for by the Seahawks ownership and are not required by the City for traffic control. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-441 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 70 Charles and Rebecca Taylor 1. Your comment is noted for the record. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s overall scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family residences. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum represent a comprehensive review of transportation impacts of existing and future traffic operations in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site. Mitigation measures identified in this FEIS include transportation improvements to address potential project traffic impacts with or without WSDOT I-405 Improvements. Without any I-405 Improvements, significant arterial and intersection improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard, at site access intersections, and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramp junctions would be required to be completed as part of the project. With the implementation of project mitigation measures, no significant transportation impacts would be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page 2-1) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 2. Your comment is noted for the record. 3. Please see the response to Comment 1 in this letter regarding traffic impacts and mitigation measures. As part of the separate cleanup/remediation process for the site, EPA will ensure that contaminants that are present in site soils and groundwater from past industrial operations will not be released into the air and water during or following site cleanup/remediation. Final, detailed plans for the re-establishment of wetlands and their buffers will be developed in accordance with EPA’s Record of Decision (ROD) or any Natural Resource Damages (NRD) settlement as part of the remediation process, prior to redevelopment. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-442 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments EPA has indicated that the environmental baseline (post-remediation conditions) represented in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are reasonable given the expected general outcome of the ROD, with the increase of the minimum shoreline setback area to 100 feet from the shoreline. The Preferred Alternative incorporates the shoreline setback recommended by EPA. In the event that the issued EPA ROD is different than what is assumed for this EIS, the applicant could be required to update the SEPA review for the project. 4. Your comment is noted for the record. 5. Please see FEIS Figure 2-2 for a conceptual sketch of the I-405/NE 44th Street interchange and Lake Washington Boulevard improvements (without I-405 Improvements). These improvements would be required to be implemented by the applicant to mitigate project-related traffic impacts. The project mitigation measures identified in this FEIS include providing frontage improvements along a number of existing public rights-of-way to current City standards. Additional sidewalk improvements, pedestrian crossing accommodations, as well as illumination upgrades would occur along widened sections of Lake Washington Boulevard and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 Ramp intersections as part of signal installation and channelization improvements. Under State law, this project cannot be required to address any existing deficiencies in off-site non-motorized facilities. See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including transportation-related mitigation measures. 6. Project mitigation measures include providing a paved bicycle lane along the east and west sides of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard from the end of the current bike trail along Ripley Lane to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard or a multi-use path could be developed on one side or separated from Ripley Lane to mitigate potential conflicts between bicycles and the Quendall Terminals site access point on Ripley Lane (see Transportation mitigation measure H10 in FEIS Chapter 1). 7. The proposed primary site access would be via the Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street intersection. Secondary access via N 43rd Street would also be provided, with an estimated 25 percent of all project traffic using this access. As shown in the DEIS and EIS Addendum, with this estimated distribution of project traffic, no substantial traffic operational impacts are anticipated at the existing Barbee Mill access (N 43rd Street). Subsequent to the issuance of the EIS Addendum, the City of Renton completed the 2014 Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton and determined that the Quendall Terminals Project should install a traffic signal at the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection as opposed to the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. However, if the traffic signal and configuration of N 43rd Street have not been constructed prior to WSDOT improvements at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, the City will consider changing the location of this signal to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard. An engineering study will be completed at that time to support the determination of the location for the installation of the traffic signal at either the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection or the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection (see FEIS Appendix C for details and FEIS Chapter Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-443 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures with the Preferred Alternative). 8. Future regional improvements planned by WSDOT along the I-405 corridor take into account this development and many other developments throughout the region. The potential impacts of the proposed Quendall Terminals Project on the local interchange, arterial system, and site access locations were evaluated in the DEIS and EIS Addendum (see Appendices H and E to those documents, respectively, for further information). These analyses identified impacts that would be significant at the nearby NE 44th Street/I-405 Interchange and local arterial system without I-405 Improvements. Project mitigation measures are identified along the arterial and intersections along Lake Washington Boulevard, at site access intersections, and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramps to address these impacts (see FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). As indicated in the DEIS and EIS Addendum, there are no significant transportation-related impacts that cannot be mitigated. 9. Please see the response to Comment 3 in this letter. 10. EPA is required to consider whether the remediation alternative to be included in the ROD is protective of reasonably anticipated land uses following cleanup. EPA is planning to consider the land uses proposed under the Preferred Alternative during consideration of the selected remediation alternative. EPA will be involving the public throughout the cleanup process prior to development of the ROD. For concerns about EPA community involvement, please contact EPA’s Community Involvement Coordinator at 206-553-6689. 11. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2009; also 2012) Priority Habitats and Species database shows no documented occurrences of priority species or habitats on the site or in the immediate vicinity, other than the presence of wetlands onsite along the lakeshore and listed fish species offsite within Lake Washington to the west and May Creek to the south. Bald eagles (a state sensitive species) may occasionally perch on the site, but the nearest known breeding site occurs on Mercer Island approximately one mile to the west, across Lake Washington. Although indicated as potentially occurring within King County by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012), the gray wolf has not been consistently or reliably documented within King County, particularly within the urbanized Puget Sound lowlands. Known or suspected occurrences of these wolves in Washington center on more remote, forested habitats in the north Cascades, and none have been recorded anywhere near the project site. Ospreys are known to occur in the area, and may use nest platforms constructed along the south end of the Seahawks Training Facility to the north and near the mouth of May Creek on the old Barbee Mill property to the south. DEIS Section 3.2, Critical Areas, and Appendix E evaluated the impacts of the proposed project on wildlife habitat. As described in that document, all of the existing vegetation communities would be removed as part of the remediation plan, prior to site development. EPA will evaluate the impacts of vegetation removal and associated wildlife/habitat impacts due cleanup/remediation activities, as well as the re- establishment of shoreline habitat, through a separate review process. Based on the cleanup/remediation process to date, this could include capping of the site area west of Lake Washington Boulevard, and re-establishment/expansion of wetland and upland Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-444 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments habitat along the shoreline of the lake. Thus, the presumed existing/baseline condition for impact analysis in the EIS is post-remediation, and the majority of the site is expected to consist of bare soil, except along the Lake Washington shore, where a shoreline restoration plan will be implemented. The upland portion of the Main Property could be temporarily re-vegetated via seeding of herbaceous species following remediation to prevent erosion and sedimentation, depending on the anticipated timing of redevelopment. Consequently, redevelopment of the upland areas onsite is not expected to remove significant habitat features or displace wildlife from these areas. Some disturbance of the re-vegetated shoreline habitat from human and construction activity could occur during construction. However, this vegetation would likely be relatively recently established and initially provide limited habitat during this period. The Preferred Alternative discussed in the EIS Addendum would include a somewhat larger natural area along the shore of Lake Washington than DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, resulting in slightly less impact to wetland and wildlife habitat. 12. Please see the response to Comment 3 in this letter. Noise was not included as an element for analysis in the EIS, because construction and operation of the proposed redevelopment is not anticipated to result in significant noise impacts (i.e., on surrounding uses) with adherence to the City’s noise regulations. New mitigation measures have been added to this FEIS to address potential noise impacts during construction of the project (i.e., related to the permitted hours of work; see Construction Impacts mitigation measures J3 and J4 in FEIS Chapter 1). 13. Please see the response to Comment 3 in this letter. 14. Please see the response to Comment 11 in this letter. 15. This FEIS identifies mitigation measures that would be implemented during the construction of deep foundation systems (i.e., piles) on the site. These measures would include a pile vibration analysis and pile monitoring during installation, as well as the use of suitable hammer and pile cushion types to reduce noise (see FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). 16. This FEIS identifies mitigation measures that would be implemented during construction on the Quendall Terminals site, including the implementation of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) that would be designed and installed in accordance with the City of Renton’s requirements (see FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). 17. Please see the response to Comment 1 in this letter regarding height, density, aesthetics and traffic and the response to Comment 5 in this letter regarding the proposed frontage improvements. 18. Your comment is noted for the record. 19. Your comment is noted for the record. From: Pavy Thao [mailto:pavyt@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 9:14 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Quendall development comments I attended the Kennydale Neighborhood meeting and am excited to hear news about the development of the Quendall Terminals. We support the private development however we are not in support of the huge scale of the development. We live on Lake Washington Blvd in the Eastport Shores condominiums. We also have a 180 view of the lake. We will be imensely affected by the high traffic in and out of this area. Our life will forever change so I do want to voice my opinion on this project. I proposed less multi family units in the range of 200-300 units. We would like more restaurants, shops, grocery store, coffee shops, fitness center, etc. I think this will benefit our neighborhood more. I visualize something like the Whole Foods store located in Redmond Wa. We are ok with commercial mixed uses. I am against high rises that are more than 4 stories high. This will block our views and do not fit in the character of our neighborhood. We hate the Seahawks training facility. It is ugly and huge. I was alot happier when there was nothing there. We demand that the city provide wider roads or create additional roads to support the high volume of traffic. Currently when I leave work at 7:30morning, there is a long line of cars on Lake Washington Blvd waiting to get on the highway to 405 North. I worried about the safety of my kids who walk on the this road, and also for the cyclists that uses the trail to ride around Lake Washington. I definitely believe that there should be community access to the water. I think there needs to be a park/playground for the kids where there are benches so the public gets to enjoy the views. The way the proposal is designed looks like it is for the benefit and only to maximize the profit of the developer and not the community residents that live in the area. I hope to see the area develop but on a smaller scale. We would like to be different and not have this area look like downtown Kirkland or Bellevue area. Thank you. My address is 4100 Lake Washington Blvd N. A101 Renton wA 98056 cell 425-5917077 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-446 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 71 Pavy Thao 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. Your comment is noted for the record. Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative based in part on comments from the public, and continued coordination with and input from the City of Renton and EPA. 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. See FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Aesthetics/Views – page 2-27) for details. The transportation analyses in the DEIS, EIS Addendum, and this Final EIS represent a comprehensive review of transportation impacts of existing and future traffic operations in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site. Project mitigation measures identified in this FEIS include transportation improvements to address project traffic impacts with or without WSDOT I-405 Improvements. Without any I-405 Improvements, significant arterial and intersection improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard, at site access intersections, and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramp junctions would be required to be completed as part of the project. As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures, and significant transportation-related impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Transportation – page 2-1) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 3. Your comments are noted for the record. 4. Please see FEIS Figure 2-2 for a conceptual sketch of I-405/NE 44th Street interchange and Lake Washington Boulevard improvements (without I-405 Improvements). These improvements would be required to be implemented by the applicant to mitigate project- related traffic impacts. The project mitigation measures in this FEIS include providing frontage improvements along a number of existing public rights-of-way to current City standards. Additional sidewalk improvements, pedestrian crossing accommodations, as well as illumination upgrades would occur along widened sections of Lake Washington Boulevard and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 Ramp intersections as part of signal installation and channelization improvements. A paved bicycle lane would be provided along the east and west sides of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard from the end of the current bike trail along Ripley Lane to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard or a multi-use path could be developed on one side or separated from Ripley Lane to mitigate potential Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-447 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments conflicts between bicycles and the Quendall Terminals site access point on Ripley Lane. See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including transportation-related mitigation measures. 5. The Preferred Alternative would provide a trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area onsite that would be accessible to the public and allow for views from the shoreline (if authorized by EPA in the Record of Decision [ROD] or any Natural Resource Damages [NRD] settlement). If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail would be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings, and could be combined with the fire access road. Tables and/or benches would be provided along the trail. Approximately 1.8 acres or indoor and/or outdoor area would be provided onsite for active recreation (i.e., Frisbee, swimming pools, tot lots, bocce ball courts, exercise rooms, active recreation in courtyards, etc.), as approved by the City’s responsible public official. 6. Your comment is noted for the record. Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative in response to comments received on the DEIS, and continued coordination with and input from EPA and the City of Renton. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes: increased shoreline setbacks and modifications to enhance compatibility with surrounding development (i.e., decreased density, building height modulation, increased view corridors, setbacks, landscaping, and modified building design). See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details. From:sonya tobeck [mailto:stobeck61@hotmail.com] Sent:Sunday, January 09, 2011 7:14 PM To:Vanessa Dolbee Subject:Quandall Terminall Property Vanessa: I am writing to you with concerns as to the above captioned project. My husband and I are current residents of the Barbee Mill community, and are concerned with the current vehical access road to the Quandall Terminal property. 43rd st should not be used as an access road for this property. Barbee Mill is a residential community with many children and elderly. Using this access road inside of our community would be too dangerous and would pose too high of a risk to both the Barbee Mill Residents and the many people that run walk and bicycle along Lake Washington Blvd. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to hearing from you. Robert and Sonya Tobeck Barbee Mill Residents 1003 N. 41st Pl Renton WA 98056 1 DEIS Letter 72 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-449 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 72 Robert and Sonya Tobeck 1. The primary access to the Quendall Terminals Project would be via the Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street intersection. As indicated in EIS Addendum Section 4.8, Transportation, and Appendix E, site access via the existing N 43rd Street onto Lake Washington Boulevard would also be provided with an estimated 25 percent of all project traffic using this access. With this estimated distribution of traffic, no significant traffic operational impacts are forecast to occur at the secondary access point via Barbee Mill onto Lake Washington Boulevard (N 43rd Street) with the proposed project. Subsequent to the issuance of the EIS Addendum, the City of Renton completed the 2014 Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton and determined that the Quendall Terminals Project should install a traffic signal at the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection as opposed to the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. However, if the traffic signal and configuration of N 43rd Street have not been constructed prior to WSDOT improvements at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, the City will consider changing the location of this signal to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard. An engineering study will be completed at that time to support the determination of the location for the installation of the traffic signal at either the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection or the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. See FEIS Appendix C for details and FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures with the Preferred Alternative. (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). The project mitigation measures in this FEIS include providing frontage improvements along a number of existing public rights-of-way to current City standards. Additional sidewalk improvements, pedestrian crossing accommodations, as well as illumination upgrades would occur along widened sections of Lake Washington Boulevard and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 Ramp intersections as part of signal installation and channelization improvements. A paved bicycle lane would be provided along the east and west sides of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard from the end of the current bike trail along Ripley Lane to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard or a multi-use path could be developed on one side or separated from Ripley Lane to mitigate potential conflicts between bicycles and the Quendall Terminals site access point on Ripley Lane. Under State law, this project cannot be required to address any existing deficiencies in off-site non-motorized facilities. See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including transportation- related mitigation measures. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-460 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO LETTER 73 Farrell and Jonell Wilson 1. See the response to Comment 1 in DEIS Letter 12. 2. See the response to Comment 2 in DEIS Letter 12. 3. See the response to Comment 3 in DEIS Letter 12. 4. See the response to Comment 4 in DEIS Letter 12. 5. See the response to Comment 5 in DEIS Letter 12. 6. See the response to Comment 6 in DEIS Letter 12. 7. See the response to Comment 7 in DEIS Letter 12. 8. See the response to Comment 8 in DEIS Letter 12. 9. See the response to Comment 9 in DEIS Letter 12. 10. See the response to Comment 10 in DEIS Letter 12. 11. See the response to Comment 11 in DEIS Letter 12. 12. See the response to Comment 12 in DEIS Letter 12. 13. See the response to Comment 13 in DEIS Letter 12. 14. See the response to Comment 14 in DEIS Letter 12. 15. See the response to Comment 15 in DEIS Letter 12. 16. See the response to Comment 16 in DEIS Letter 12. 17. See the response to Comment 17 in DEIS Letter 12. 18. See the response to Comment 18 in DEIS Letter 12. 19. See the response to Comment 19 in DEIS Letter 12. 20. See the response to Comment 20 in DEIS Letter 12. 21. See the response to Comment 21 in DEIS Letter 12. 22. See the response to Comment 22 in DEIS Letter 12. 23. See the response to Comment 23 in DEIS Letter 12. 24. See the response to Comment 24 in DEIS Letter 12. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-461 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 25. See the response to Comment 25 in DEIS Letter 12. 26. See the response to Comment 26 in DEIS Letter 12. 27. See the response to Comment 27 in DEIS Letter 12. 28. See the response to Comment 28 in DEIS Letter 12. 29. See the response to Comment 29 in DEIS Letter 12. 30. See the response to Comment 30 in DEIS Letter 12. 31. See the response to Comment 31 in DEIS Letter 12. 32. See the response to Comment 32 in DEIS Letter 12. 33. See the response to Comment 33 in DEIS Letter 12. 34. See the response to Comment 34 in DEIS Letter 12. 35. See the response to Comment 35 in DEIS Letter 12. 36. See the response to Comment 36 in DEIS Letter 12. 37. See the response to Comment 37 in DEIS Letter 12. 38. See the response to Comment 38 in DEIS Letter 12. 39. See the response to Comment 39 in DEIS Letter 12. 40. See the response to Comment 40 in DEIS Letter 12. 41. See the response to Comment 41 in DEIS Letter 12. 42. See the response to Comment 42 in DEIS Letter 12. 43. See the response to Comment 43 in DEIS Letter 12. 44. See the response to Comment 44 in DEIS Letter 12. 45. See the response to Comment 45 in DEIS Letter 12. 46. See the response to Comment 46 in DEIS Letter 12. 47. See the response to Comment 47 in DEIS Letter 12. 48. See the response to Comment 48 in DEIS Letter 12. 49. See the response to Comment 49 in DEIS Letter 12. 50. See the response to Comment 50 in DEIS Letter 12. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-463 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 74 Charles Wittmann 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. Your comment is noted for the record. 3. Your comment is noted for the record. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in the 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would also be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s overall scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family residences. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1- 20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 4. Your comment is noted for the record. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum assumed two transportation scenarios: 1) future development of the Quendall Terminals site with the WSDOT NE 44th Street/I-405 Improvements, and 2) future development without the NE 44th Street/I-405 Improvements. Mitigation measures were identified for both scenarios that would minimize potential transportation-related impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative. As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures. See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including transportation-related mitigation measures. (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 5. The mitigation measures in the DEIS and EIS Addendum included providing frontage improvements along a number of existing public rights-of-way to current City standards. Additional sidewalk improvements, pedestrian crossing accommodations, as well as illumination upgrades would occur along widened sections of Lake Washington Boulevard and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramp intersections as part of signal installation and channelization improvements. Under State law, this project cannot be required to address any existing deficiencies in off-site non-motorized facilities. See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including transportation-related mitigation measures. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-464 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 6. Your comment is noted for the record. Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative in response to comments received on the DEIS, and continued coordination with and input from EPA and the City of Renton. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes: increased shoreline setbacks and modifications to enhance compatibility with surrounding development (i.e., decreased density, building height modulation, increased view corridors, setbacks, landscaping, and modified building design). See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-466 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 75 Anne Woodley 1. Your comment is noted for the record. 2. Proposed lighting on in the Quendall Terminals Project would adhere to the City of Renton’s lighting standards (RMC 4-4-075). Mitigation measures were also identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum to minimize potential light impacts to surrounding uses, including shielding lighting from adjacent uses and directing lighting downward and away from adjacent uses and the shoreline of Lake Washington. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Light and Glare – page 2-31) for details on proposed lighting and FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including light and glare-related mitigation measures. 3. The DEIS and EIS Addendum acknowledged that the proposed lighting levels would be greater than adjacent uses. However, the lighting levels would be consistent with an urban environment, and project mitigation measures have been identified to minimize potential light impacts. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Light and Glare – page 2-31) for details on proposed lighting and FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including light and glare-related mitigation measures. 4. Your comment is noted for the record. 5. The proposed Quendall Terminals Project is being coordinated with the cleanup and remediation process that is currently being overseen by the EPA. Project mitigation measures have been identified that would ensure that any development on the Quendall Terminals site would comply with the requirements of the final cleanup remedy selected by EPA or any Natural Resource Damages (NRD) settlement and any associated institutional controls (see FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including environmental health- related mitigation measures). 6. The Preferred Alternative includes a trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area that, if authorized by EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement, would be accessible to the public (see Figure 1-1 for the Preferred Alternative site plan that includes a conceptual depiction of this trail). If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail would be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings, and could be combined with the fire access road. 7. Following expiration of the appeal period on the FEIS and Mitigation Measures Agreement, an open record public hearing will be held before the City’s Hearing Examiner to consider the Master Site Plan, the Binding Site Plan, the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and any appeals of the FEIS (RMC 4-8-100(F)). At least seven days prior to the scheduled public hearing, a City staff report will be filed with the Examiner (RMC 4-8-100(E)(2)). The City staff report is prepared by the Development Services Division, and contains comments and recommendations of all City departments and government agencies having an interest in the subject application (RMC 4-8-100(E)(1)). The FEIS will accompany the City’s staff report to the Hearing Examiner (RMC 4-9-070(K)(5)). As part of the City’s preparation of the staff report, the applicant may be required to submit additional information on the project necessary for Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-467 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments the Master Site Plan, the Binding Site Plan, and the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approvals. Following the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner will issue a written decision including the following: (i) a decision on the appeal of the FEIS, if any (RMC 4-9-070(R)); (ii) a decision on the Master Plan; (iii) a decision on the Binding Site Plan; and, (iv) a recommendation on the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Any appeals of the Hearing Examiner’s decisions on the project must be filed with the City within 14 days of the Hearing Examiner’s written decision (RMC 4-8-110(E)(14)). The City will subsequently file its recommendation on the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit with the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 1 Date: Jan 20, 2011 To: City of Renton Planning Department Attn: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7314 vdolbee@rentonwa.gov From: Name: Sheng-chi Wu Address: 1222 N 42nd Place, Renton, WA 98056 Phone Number: 832 971 9396 Email Address: swu@bechtel.com Subject: Public Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal Draft EIS (LUA09-151) Following are our comments regarding the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal site as outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). As homeowners, tax payers and citizens of the City of Renton, we believe that the proposed and binding Quendall development proposal has tremendous negative and adverse impacts to the environment, property, the neighborhood and our Barbee Mill community and should NOT be approved. 1) Size & Scale Impact a. Scale—The proposed scale, density and height of the buildings in both alternatives are completely out-of-scale, incompatible and inconsistent with all neighborhoods on the entire shoreline of Lake Washington. The typical height limit for buildings along the Lake is 35 ft. The proposed heights and densities exceed those of Downtown Kirkland, Carillon Point, Bellevue and Seattle’s Lake Washington facing neighborhoods. Furthermore, the proposed scale, density and height of the Quendall proposal are inconsistent and incompatible with adjacent neighborhoods, the East facing shoreline of Mercer Island. It will completely dwarf the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. b. The proposed buildings would be more than 40 ft taller than the height of the Barbee Mill homes. And they would be more than double the height of all nearby residences! The proposed buildings are nearly 90 ft in height although they are marked as 77 ft on the applicants elevation drawings, which is 3/4 the height of the Seahawks/VMAC Facility and the Boeing Airplane Factory. Again this is completely out-of-scale with the Barbee Mill neighborhood AND anything else along the Lake Washington shoreline. (DEIS 3.5-12) i. Figure 3.7-2 in the DEIS is an inaccurate and misleading rendering that attempts to conceal the height and visual impact of both proposal alternatives. c. The proposed architectural design resembles an industrial park and does not have the look or the feel of a residential neighborhood. It is certainly “not consistent with the existing urban character” (as claimed in DEIS 3.5- 12) of any of the immediate and nearby residential neighborhoods, including Barbee Mill. The proposed scale, density and character would Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 2 be an eyesore no matter what angle it is viewed from within the adjacent neighborhoods or from lakefront properties along Mercer. d. The proposed design looks more like the Landing, which is sandwiched in between a shopping center and the country’s second largest airplane factory and which is NOT located on the shores of one of the most beautiful lakes in the state and which is NOT located in the middle of an existing residential area. e. The Applicant claims that this area along the Lake Washington shoreline is currently a high-density urban environment. (DEIS 3.5-12) This statement is misleading and couldn’t be farther from the truth as all neighboring areas are completely residential (with the exception of the Seahawks facility.) f. The proposed designs and project scope, scale and density are inappropriate for the shoreline of Lake Washington and do not in any way take advantage of the Lake front location and view. The buildings face each other instead of the Lake. The primary lake view outlook and central lakefront architectural feature is a semi-circular parking lot. i. The Mayor stated in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Renton still has some amazing waterfront property on Lake Washington.” We couldn’t agree more. However, this proposal in no way takes advantage of or capitalizes on this amazing piece of waterfront property. In fact, the proposal looks like the City of Renton has taken a giant step backwards by proposing a self- facing vs. lake facing, residential complex, retail and office park with limited green space and tree canopy. This is not responsible growth. Nor is it responsible stewardship and development of the largest piece of remaining undeveloped land along the shoreline of beautiful Lake Washington. ii. The proposal calls for a straight, walled, 2-story parking garage, approximately 1000 ft in length, to traverse the entire Lake Washington frontage of the Quendall development with absolutely no undulation. There is nothing in the architectural design to break up the negative, visual impact of this two-story wall facing the Lake. This scale of this lake-facing 2-story garage wall is unheard of in residential zoning and lakefront zoning and does not fit the character nor complement the adjacent neighborhoods. g. The proposed development does NOT complement or add value to the existing neighborhoods especially neighboring Barbee Mill. Instead, this development would be tremendously destructive to the property value for the surrounding neighborhoods (including Barbee Mill, Kennydale, Newcastle and the East-facing side of Mercer Island) and detrimental to the quality of life for residents. 2) Density Impact a. This proposal repeatedly and misleadingly (DEIS 3.9-1) describes the Quendall development as “compatible with the existing neighborhoods.” This is preposterous and we strongly disagree. For example, Barbee Mill to the south has a planned density of 5 residential units per acre and contains no commercial (office or retail) space. The Quendall proposal is for 37 residential units per acre plus up to a ¼ million square feet of commercial space that would accommodate up to 2000 daily visitors. This is approximately 7 times the density of the local residential areas Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 3 and is in no way “consistent with the existing urban character of the area.” In fact, the existing character of the local area can only accurately be described as residential. Both proposal alternatives, present tremendous compatibility impacts with the surrounding neighborhoods. b. Commercial/residential buildings in Renton and in the greater Eastside area, have tended to have a history of high-turnover, high-vacancy and have not proven to be particularly commercially viable. Our concern is that tenants of apartments and commercial space will have no vested interest in the neighborhood, the community or in the future vision for the city of Renton. And that such a development, could wind up sitting vacant for many years to come. 3) Traffic, Transportation & Parking Impact a. The traffic impact assessment in the DEIS is completely unrealistic. To begin with, the analysis in the DEIS does not take into account the traffic study and analysis for the adjacent Hawk’s Landing (Pan Abode) development, which estimated an additional 1400+ automotive trips a day flowing onto Lake Washington Blvd and adding to traffic congestion on the surrounding streets and I-405 exit 7 on-ramps and off-ramps. i. Before this or any other area development proposal is approved, a new, comprehensive traffic analysis should be done that focuses on the combined traffic impact of: Quendall Terminal property, Hawk’s Landing/Pan Abode property, Seakhawks/VMAC Facility, Ripley Lane neighborhood, Barbee Mill, Kennydale neighborhood, I-405 congestion, commuters trying to bypass 405 congestion on Lake Washington Blvd and the City’s goal of providing direct access to Lake Washington from Park Dr & Sunset Blvd. This comprehensive traffic analysis should reflect all existing, proposed and potential developments and their collective impact on the immediate vicinity and existing neighborhoods. WSDOT analysis, future plans and funding for I-405 must be factored into the traffic analysis and any infrastructure planning. (Reference: Hawk’s Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009) b. The proposal calls for an unacceptable increase in traffic with an estimated 2000 cars a day. Add to that, the estimated 1400 automotive trips a day from the proposed Hawks Landing development. The current infrastructure can in no way support the increases being proposed. There are no proposed plans to improve or widen the immediate roads or build the proper egress and ingress access roads to/from the proposed Quendall development. c. The proposal calls for N 43rd St to serve as the primary entrance to the Quendall property. This narrow, residential street is already the primary entrance for the residential neighborhood of Barbee Mill. This un-striped, 2-lane 135-ft long street, which has two stop signs and a railroad crossing, can in no way accommodate the proposed additional 2000 cars per day PLUS the cars of Barbee Mill residents. Furthermore, 43rd has already become plagued by a dangerous trends of drivers making hazardous u-turns and 3-point turns in the intersection of 43rd and Lake Washington Blvd. Given all this, it is shocking that the DEIS does NOT list NE 43rd St as a roadway condition concern. NE 43rd St is in no way sufficient to serve as the primary entrance for both Quendall and Barbee Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 4 Mill it cannot safely and effectively accommodate the additional influx of 2000 cars per day. This proposal will result in intolerable traffic congestion, increased risk of accidents, noise pollution and egress problems for Barbee Mill Homeowners. i. 2000 additional cars/day will translate into 700 to 800 ft of traffic jams along Lake Washington Blvd, 43rd and Ripley Lane. The current infrastructure can in no way handle this increased volume. Lake Washington Blvd. is a narrow, 2-lane, scenic, curving, hilly, 25 mph road with bike lanes in both margins and many residential driveways. It is already extremely difficult to navigate Lake Washington Blvd given the present volume of traffic. Furthermore, it is already difficult with the present volume of traffic to enter or exit the Barbee Mill development at 43rd or 41st during the peak traffic hours and/or on sunny summer days from Lake Washington Blvd. Lake Washington Blvd does not have the capacity to handle the 2000/day proposed additional cars (3400+ if you factor in Hawk’s Landing). And, any serious infrastructure modifications to Lake Washington Blvd would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhoods, the environmentally sensitive May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline. 1. As a demonstration, one need to look no further than the congestion, parking and traffic nightmare that was created on 1/14/11 when hundreds of Seahawk Fans (including children and pets) and their vehicles descended on the intersection of Ripley Lane and Lake Washington Blvd. Cars were parked all over 43rd, 44th, Lake Washington & Ripley Lane. It made it nearly impossible to enter/exit Barbee Mill on 43rd. Fans also jammed the 30th Bridge and surrounding Kennydale neighborhoods, which has been proposed as an alternate travel route for the Quendall Property. 2. As a demonstration, congestion is also extremely heavy when during the Seahawk Training Days in August, despite the fact that the Seahawks arrange for buses and parking in the Landing in their effort to mitigate what would be the adverse impact of an approximate 2000 cars per day from coming into and parking in the neighborhoods adjacent to Ripley Lane including Barbee Mill. 3. We do not understand why the proposal does not bring traffic directly into the center of the Quendall property via a new access road which would need to be built to cross Ripley Lane and that would be more capable of handling that volume of traffic. However, we are not sure that any development plan that calls for 2000 or more additional cars/day on area roads can be adequately addressed through existing, modified or new infrastructure. 4. The details of the traffic analysis for Lake Washington Blvd at 43rd have been left out of (Table 3.9-1) AND there is no mention in the proposal of improving 43rd. ii. We are concerned that frustrated motorists who are eager to avoid the traffic congestion on Lake Washington Blvd will either make Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 5 dangerous u-turns and/or choose to use Barbee Mill as a major arterial north/south bypass route for Lake Washington Blvd. The streets within Barbee Mill can in no way accommodate this increased traffic volume. This bypass traffic would present a tremendous risk and inconvenience for Barbee Mill residents. It would hamper ability to safely enter and exit our own neighborhood and residences. The added traffic on Barbee Mill’s streets would create a public safety risks for residents as well as for area pedestrians, joggers, cyclists, children in strollers and pets that enjoy our streets. We are extremely concerned about the added danger of so many motorists trying to navigate the already hazardous blind curve at 42nd (just shortly after you turn into Barbee Mill from 43rd). The bypass traffic would also generate significant noise pollution. We believe that this proposal and its traffic volume will not only impact Barbee Mill homeowner and community safety but that it will adversely impact and reduce property values and quality of life for Barbee Mill homeowners. d. Traffic on I-405 at 44th and 30th is already one of the most frequently congested parts of the freeway in both the North and South lanes. Congestion occurs not only at peak traffic hours but throughout the majority of the day. The freeway, just as the neighboring roads, can in no way accommodate an additional influx of 2000 cars per day. Throughout the proposal, the applicant has stated that various traffic impacts could be mitigated through a coordinated effort with WSDOT. However, WSDOT went on record during the DEIS Scoping Summary stating that “the potential I-405/NE 44 St interchange improvements project is not funded, and is not likely to be funded in the foreseeable future; the transportation analysis should not assume that this project is complete or will occur.” (Pg 5-EIS Scoping Summary) We believe that approving a major Quendall development plan without WSDOT commitment, funding, schedule and a plan in place to improve this interchange would have irreversible consequences and would cause a tremendous number of adverse impacts. i. There are scenarios in the proposal that suggest using the I-405 30th street onramp/offramp (exit 6) and then routing cars through the hilly, residential neighborhoods in Kennydale along 30th, 40th, Burnett and Park. This is not a realistic alternative and is equally as dangerous as cars choosing to use Barbee Mill as a shortcut. And it could encourage drivers travelling northbound and southbound on Lake Washington Blvd to take a shortcut through Barbee Mill. e. Transportation—The proposal does not include any plans to develop, improve or encourage public transit in the vicinity. This means that there would be no alternative form of transportation for the estimated 2000+ daily visitors and tenants. It is not an environmentally responsible transportation design solution to place 2000 additional cars onto neighborhood streets and the lakefront in this residential community without providing realistic transportation alternatives. i. In the Mayor’s 2010 State of the City Address, he declared “I believe that it is vital that we have the right infrastructure in place now to serve the needs of our future. We will continue to work with Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 6 the state and regional transportation organizations to make critical investments to create an affective transportation system that allows goods and people to move efficiently.” The Quendall proposal does not provide for any investments to create an affective transportation solution in the area NOR does it put the right infrastructure in place to serve the needs of the immediate area and alleviate traffic and noise and air pollution impacts and public safety risks. f. Parking—In the Proposal Alternative 2, there are surface level parking lots for 220 cars up placed right up against the entire north property line for Barbee Mill. This is in no way consistent with land use compatibility in the neighborhood and will adversely impact property values and quality of life. Nor is Proposal Alternative 1, which calls for a 6-story building to be placed right up against the north fence of Barbee Mill. We believe that it is not an acceptable plan to place parking lots, tall buildings and/or delivery entrances right up against the north Barbee Mill fence. i. We are concerned that if fees are charged for parking in the Quendall development, that visitors and tenants will seek out free parking in the adjacent neighborhood streets especially at Barbee Mill—which already suffers from insufficient street parking for residents and guests. 4) Public Safety Impact a. Cyclist Safety/Pedestrian/Runners Safety—Lake Washington Blvd was never meant to be a major thoroughfare. It is a hilly, scenic route through residential neighborhoods. It has no sidewalks and is very poorly lit at night. In fact, it is already quite dangerous on winter nights to turn into the Barbee Mill development at either 43rd or 44th St as there are no streetlights at either intersection. Lake Washington Blvd (in addition to Barbee Mill streets) is currently used not only by vehicles but also by pedestrians walking their pets and children, joggers and bicyclists. Given that there are no sidewalks and poor lighting along the road, such an increase in cars would not only cause traffic gridlock and backups but would also present a tremendous safety hazard to all using the bike lanes and shoulders for purposes other than driving. i. As a demonstration, a Barbee Mill resident counted more than 140 cyclists using Lake Washington Blvd and crossing 43rd St in a 90- minute period on a recent summer Saturday morning. b. We are concerned that the proposed public access trail and above ground parking lots located right against Barbee Mill North fence would invite evening transient traffic and loitering that could lead to crime. This fence backs up against an existing quiet residential neighborhood. This would not only adversely impact quality of life for Barbee Mill residents but also reduce property values. c. We are concerned that the proposed traffic volume and insufficient infrastructure, would affect the ability of emergency vehicles and first responders to quickly access the Barbee Mill community (and Ripley Lane neighborhood) in the event of an emergency. This puts the lives and health of residents at risk. d. We are concerned that a newly accessible open public space, trails, and parking lots may become an attractive target to a criminal element and would bring an increase risk of crime, vandalism, gang activity, graffiti, Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 7 noise, and other negative and unwanted activity that would put neighborhood homeowners’ safety and security at risk. 5) Light, Glare & Noise Impact a. We have tremendous concern over the amount light and glare that would be emitted from the proposed high-density residential buildings (proposed to be as high as 90ft) and the evening and night-time restaurant patrons and shoppers in the retail development. We also are concerned about the noise pollution that would come from delivery trucks, giant HVAC units, 2000+ cars/day and ensuing traffic, residential tenants, office workers, retail shoppers and potential bar/restaurant patrons. The light, glare and noise from the proposed Quendall development would adversely impact quality of life and property values for the residents and homeowners of Barbee Mill. 6) Environmental Impact a. The true baseline character of the Quendall property is unknown until the EPA mandated remedial action is fully specified and completed. We believe that the DEIS proposes prematurely, approval of a BINDING site plan for specifications of square feet of various building types, number of parking spaces, roads, traffic and egress to and from the development. Approving the BINDING plan PRIOR TO completed the mandated remedial clean up of the Superfund sight is not only unwise and imprudent but the long term consequences and negative impacts are just too great. As homeowners, this is not the legacy we want to have to live with nor is what we want for our health, our quality of life and our property values. b. Mayor Law declared in his 2010 State of the City address that: “Clean, healthy air; high quality drinking water; and trails and green open spaces are key to keeping our city a great place to live and work. Expanding our tree canopy, creating a better trail system, and protecting our environment provides many benefits to the city and boosts property values by making neighborhoods greener.” Unfortunately, the current proposal for Quendall runs completely contrary to the Mayor’s pledge. c. Superfund Site Carcinogens & The Impact on The Environment—The The EPA has tremendous concerns about the carcinogenic substances on the Quendall site, cleanup and the adverse impact the cleanup would have on the Lake, including fishing and swimming and on several species. We share this concern. (EPA ID# WAD980639215). i. They state: “The primary contaminants of concern are carcinogenic PAHs and benzene. These contaminants are found in the soil and ground water throughout the site. These compounds are found at concentrations well above State cleanup levels for residential and industrial sites. At some locations on the site, creosote product has been found under the surface. In some areas the product is four to six feet thick. Releases of these contaminants to Lake Washington are of particular concern. Lake Washington is used for a variety of recreational purposes including fishing and swimming. The southern end of Lake Washington, including the area where the site is located, is considered prime habitat for rearing of juvenile Chinook, which is a Federal Threatened Species, and other salmon stocks. The Cedar River, which enters Lake Washington approximately two Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 8 miles from the site, supports the largest sockeye run in the contiguous United States. Lake Washington also supports several sensitive environments including habitat for bull trout and the bald eagle. In addition, there are two swimming beaches located within one half mile of the site.” As homeowners at Barbee Mill, we enjoy having access to the shoreline in our development and do not want to see it adversely impacted by release of contaminates nor do we want to put the health of our families at risk. d. We understand that the EPA has jurisdiction over the remediation and cleanup of the Superfund Site at Quendall Terminals. We are extremely concerned about what carcinogenic contaminants will be released into the air and water (through either surface or aquifer transfer) and into our neighborhoods and into our shoreline and May Creek as a result of the initial cleanup process. We are also extremely concerned the adverse impact that the proposed mitigation, landfilling, grading, piling driving and other redevelopment activities will have on our neighborhoods and our residents. Furthermore, the DEIS proposes no dust control measures during the construction process to minimize contaminant transportation to Barbee Mill Homes. We believe strongly that it is NOT PRUDENT OR RESPONSIBLE to approve any BINDING redevelopment proposal for this site until the remediation and cleanup of this critical Superfund site has been thoroughly planned and safely planned, executed and effectively completed by the EPA. To expedite the redevelopment process in order to pursue redevelopment income, puts at risk and adversely affects the health and lives of the immediate neighborhood residents, users of Lake Washington and the existing wildlife. Pursuing binding development agreements BEFORE Superfund cleanup, would be an extremely poor decision with a tremendously risky outcome. e. Wetlands— The overall wetlands in the Quendall property are at least twice the size they are portrayed as in the EIS. In particular in the Southwest corner (a small blue dot labeled “H”) is nearly an acre in total size, which is 50-times the size of what is portrayed in the DEIS. i. The Wetland buffer area for shoreline wetlands should remain at a minimum of 50 ft and should not be reduced for shoreline trails or buildings as currently proposed and shown on figure 2-7. ii. Substituting Wetland “I” or “J”, which is nothing more than a drainage ditch, (per figure 2.6, 2.7 and 2.11) which are separated by Ripley Lane & the railroad tracks and have absolutely no continuity with the Quendall site are not adequate or appropriate solutions for mitigating onsite wetlands throughout the Quendall site including adjacent to Barbee Mill. f. Wildlife—The EIS makes no mention of existing wildlife or mitigation for their loss of habitat from the proposed construction. There are ospreys, eagles, herons, deer, hummingbirds, and other species living in the wetlands and natural habitat of the Quendall property. CONCLUSIONS 1) We recommend that the City does NOT PROCEED with the current BINDING proposal as outlined in the Draft EIS. Of the three alternatives proposed, we believe that the ONLY viable alternative is that of “NO ACTION.” Comments Regarding Quendall Terminal DEIS Page 9 2) We certainly hope that Mayor Law meant what he pledged in his 2010 State of The City address when he stated: “By engaging citizens to participate in the process we are starting to create a picture of a city that is a leader in growth management.” a. Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, City Planners and Hearing Examiner, as citizens of Renton we are participating in the DEIS public hearing process and we are loudly saying that the proposals outlined in the DEIS for the Quendall Terminal Redevelopment are in no way in alignment with that goal of responsible growth management and would have tremendous adverse impacts on the surrounding community. 3) Mayor Law also concluded his 2010 State of the City address with these words: “I am optimistic about the future. I am optimistic because people in our community are willing to step up and do what is necessary; because it is through partnerships that we tackle tough issues; and because we never quit planning for the future of this great community.” a. So here we are, the people of Renton stepping up and tackling the tough issues of a poorly thought out, extremely inappropriate and binding DEIS proposal that is completely out of character with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. IF approved and developed, the proposed Quendall development would be a devastating destruction to the shoreline of Lake Washington and to the surrounding community. This proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Property is definitely NOT what we want to see in the future of our great community. 4) We believe that this proposal would have a tremendously adverse impact on the existing adjacent neighborhoods especially our Barbee Mill community. The proposed Quendall development would negatively impact and affect traffic, public safety, quality of life and property values in Barbee Mill and surrounding neighborhoods. 5) As homeowners, taxpayers and citizens of the City of Renton, we urge the City of Renton to NOT approve this binding proposal for the redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Proposal. The only one of its alternatives that is viable is that of “NO ACTION!” Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-477 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS LETTER 76 Sheng-chi Wu 1. See the response to Comment 1 in DEIS Letter 12. 2. See the response to Comment 2 in DEIS Letter 12. 3. See the response to Comment 3 in DEIS Letter 12. 4. See the response to Comment 4 in DEIS Letter 12. 5. See the response to Comment 5 in DEIS Letter 12. 6. See the response to Comment 6 in DEIS Letter 12. 7. See the response to Comment 7 in DEIS Letter 12. 8. See the response to Comment 8 in DEIS Letter 12. 9. See the response to Comment 9 in DEIS Letter 12. 10. See the response to Comment 10 in DEIS Letter 12. 11. See the response to Comment 11 in DEIS Letter 12. 12. See the response to Comment 12 in DEIS Letter 12. 13. See the response to Comment 13 in DEIS Letter 12. 14. See the response to Comment 14 in DEIS Letter 12. 15. See the response to Comment 15 in DEIS Letter 12. 16. See the response to Comment 16 in DEIS Letter 12. 17. See the response to Comment 17 in DEIS Letter 12. 18. See the response to Comment 18 in DEIS Letter 12. 19. See the response to Comment 19 in DEIS Letter 12. 20. See the response to Comment 20 in DEIS Letter 12. 21. See the response to Comment 21 in DEIS Letter 12. 22. See the response to Comment 22 in DEIS Letter 12. 23. See the response to Comment 23 in DEIS Letter 12. 24. See the response to Comment 24 in DEIS Letter 12. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-478 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 25. See the response to Comment 25 in DEIS Letter 12. 26. See the response to Comment 26 in DEIS Letter 12. 27. See the response to Comment 27 in DEIS Letter 12. 28. See the response to Comment 28 in DEIS Letter 12. 29. See the response to Comment 29 in DEIS Letter 12. 30. See the response to Comment 30 in DEIS Letter 12. 31. See the response to Comment 31 in DEIS Letter 12. 32. See the response to Comment 32 in DEIS Letter 12. 33. See the response to Comment 33 in DEIS Letter 12. 34. See the response to Comment 34 in DEIS Letter 12. 35. See the response to Comment 35 in DEIS Letter 12. 36. See the response to Comment 36 in DEIS Letter 12. 37. See the response to Comment 37 in DEIS Letter 12. 38. See the response to Comment 38 in DEIS Letter 12. 39. See the response to Comment 39 in DEIS Letter 12. 40. See the response to Comment 40 in DEIS Letter 12. 41. See the response to Comment 41 in DEIS Letter 12. 42. See the response to Comment 42 in DEIS Letter 12. 43. See the response to Comment 43 in DEIS Letter 12. 44. See the response to Comment 44 in DEIS Letter 12. 45. See the response to Comment 45 in DEIS Letter 12. 46. See the response to Comment 46 in DEIS Letter 12. 47. See the response to Comment 47 in DEIS Letter 12. 48. See the response to Comment 48 in DEIS Letter 12. 49. See the response to Comment 49 in DEIS Letter 12. 50. See the response to Comment 50 in DEIS Letter 12. In The Matter Of: Quendall Terminals DEIS Comment Meeting Public Comments January 4, 2011 Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows Court Reporters 401 Second Avenue South, Suite 700 Seattle, Washington 98104 Original File DEIS Transcription 1-4-11 Min-U-Script® Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep Public Comments - January 4, 2011 1 1 2 ____________________________________________________________ 3 4 QUENDALL TERMINALS 5 DEIS COMMENT MEETING 6 PUBLIC COMMENTS 7 ____________________________________________________________ 8 9 10 6:00 P.M. 11 Tuesday, January 4, 2011 12 13 Renton City Hall 14 1055 S. Grady Way 15 Renton, Washington 16 17 WILLIAM A. MCLAUGHLIN 18 CCR #3128 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 2 1 I N D E X 2 Speaker Page ------- ---- 3 4 5 Carol O'Connell 3 6 1241 N. 42nd Place 7 Gary Pipkin 4 8 1120 N. 38th Street 9 Len Reid 6 10 1217 N. 42nd Place 11 Ron Nicol 8 12 1030 N. 42nd Place 13 Bob Becker 9 14 1007 N. 42nd Place 15 Paul Siegmund 14 16 1006 N. 42nd Place 17 Rich Wagner 24 18 2411 Garden Court North 19 Larry Reymann 28 20 1313 North 38th Street 21 22 23 24 25 Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 3 1 2 P U B L I C C O M M E N T S 3 4 Carol O'Connell 5 6 Thank you. I have three areas that I'm 7 concerned about with regard to this proposal. The 8 first is with traffic. I do live in Barbee Mill. 9 And right now, trying to get out of our development 10 on 43rd onto Lake Washington in the mornings, it's a 11 backup and it is already difficult. Add another 12 1,000 to 2,000 cars, it's going to be impossible. 13 The next one issue is that I haven't heard 14 anything in all this about the bikers. And this area 15 is very popular with the bike riders, and it is 16 actually promoted because we have the trail that goes 17 around Lake Washington, they then turn onto Ripley, 18 and then they catch up with the bike trail. 19 That turn -- because from my home I can watch 20 that -- is already a problem for the bikers to get 21 across that road on Lake Washington. And I don't 22 know if you're aware, but in a two-hour period, I 23 counted 148 bikers -- bicyclists, excuse me -- on a 24 Saturday morning. It is a very popular trail and a 25 very popular area. That whole intersection, the Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 4 1 whole thing with the traffic on Lake Washington, is 2 just an accident waiting to happen. 3 The last issue I have is the height of the 4 buildings. Seven stories is far too high for the 5 environmental impact, the visual impact, all of that 6 with that area. And it's my understanding from some 7 of the other neighbors that even Conner Homes tried 8 to do something higher and was not allowed to do 9 that. So I don't understand why this is going 10 through with that number, that height of complex. 11 Thank you. 12 13 Gary Pipkin 14 15 My name is Gary Pipkin. I live at 1120 North 16 38th Street in Renton, Lower Kennydale. I have four 17 points to make. First point is the building height. 18 Four stories above the ground at this location is a 19 known limit for not encroaching upon views of people 20 east of that location. Other building organizations 21 that have completed projects in that area were made 22 to keep their buildings shorter than a four-story 23 building with a flat roof. Otherwise it would 24 encroach on the view. 25 The street needs to be dictated as remaining a Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 5 1 two-lane, one-lane each direction, 12-foot traffic 2 lane width, residential and scenic street with a 3 maximum 25 mile-an-hour speed limit. That retains 4 the scenic character of what we're trying to keep on 5 Lake Washington Boulevard. for the walkers, the 6 bicycle riders, and the people that enjoy the view 7 just driving up Lake Washington Blvd. 8 We want to make sure that there are no added 9 turn lanes, no widening of Lake Washington Blvd. for 10 any reason to access the new development at all. 11 This will discourage people using Lake Washington 12 Boulevard. from the south to the north as a sort of 13 time shortcut because traffic gets too busy from the 14 north. If you add turn lanes in there, it will 15 encourage them to come up Park Street, down 40th and 16 then onto Lake Washington Blvd., or straight up Lake 17 Washington Blvd. 18 The Park Street shortcut that will be used, if 19 people are allowed to do that, is extremely 20 hazardous. And on previous construction projects, no 21 construction traffic was allowed to use Park Street 22 because of the school children, the preschool 23 children. And adding the additional hazard of people 24 late to work using Park Street to by-pass all the 25 stop signs would be even more of a hazard in addition Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 6 1 to what was considered before on other projects. 2 The parking at the site that's provided, the 3 parking garages that are provided, needs to guarantee 4 that it shall always remain free parking, no fee. If 5 that is not done, traffic will spill onto Lake 6 Washington Blvd, be parked on both sides of the 7 street to avoid parking fees. And younger folks who 8 are in good shape won't mind a quarter of a mile hike 9 to the building to save 50 bucks a month. So we have 10 to make sure that the parking remains free in that 11 location that they're building. 12 The fourth point I want to make is, again, 13 reiterate that no construction traffic should be 14 allowed to use North Park Street to access the site. 15 A study was done on a couple of other projects there 16 and an extreme hazard with small children was 17 recognized. Thank you. 18 19 Len Reid 20 21 My name is Len Reid. My address is 1217 North 22 42nd Place in Renton, which is the Barbee Mill 23 Estate. A couple of the items I wanted to address 24 have already been addressed. That was the access for 25 the bicyclists. It's already a hazard. Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 7 1 The other thing is lighting along that area, as 2 well, is very inadequate street lighting. I'm not 3 sure if that is being proposed to improve that. The 4 traffic egress from Barbee Mill is already getting 5 quite difficult now in the mornings when you leave 6 for work or if you're coming back at night. 7 I don't see any plans to put traffic lights on 8 that access onto Lake Washington Blvd. If it does, 9 it starts to destroy the local environment of why we 10 moved to Barbee Mill in the first place. 11 The other thing is the recreational facilities 12 for children. Imagine with 800 residents moving in 13 there, or families, it's going to be some sort of 14 access or requirements for recreation facilities for 15 children. I didn't see anything proposed on the 16 plans for that either. 17 The other thing is the height of the buildings 18 being five stories adjacent to the Barbee Mill 19 Estate. It then starts to destroy our privacy with 20 people living in the upper floors can look straight 21 down into our estate. And I think that needs to be 22 considered for the residents who already moved to 23 that location because it was never discussed that 24 something would be built that tall on the adjacent 25 property. Thank you. Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 8 1 2 Ron Nicol 3 4 My name is Ron Nicol. I live at 1030 North 42nd 5 Place, Barbee Mill, and I have the same concerns that 6 are basically being expressed. The traffic, right 7 now on a sunny day in the summer, Lake Washington 8 Blvd. is gridlock going southbound. That's without 9 the additional traffic. I think if you build a 10 project of this density where there's only one 11 egress, it's pretty much landlocked except one exit. 12 And there will be incredible jam-ups trying to get in 13 and out of that area. I'm a bike rider. And when 14 you make that -- going north on Lake Washington Blvd. 15 making that left turn to go past the Seahawks, it's 16 already quite hazardous with the traffic that's 17 already there. 18 I think the other thing is the height of the 19 buildings. I think that it's certainly a variation 20 from the aesthetics of anything along the lake. And 21 it, I think, would be oppressive. The views have 22 been mentioned. 23 I think proposal 2 is at least better than 24 proposal 1. I'd like to at least compliment them 25 that they have moved the buildings away from the Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 9 1 property line, and if something of that proposed 2 density does get passed, I'd like to at least 3 encourage them to put them a little more to the 4 center of the property and give a little buffer for 5 the Barbee Mill people. And that's about it. 6 7 Bob Becker. 8 9 My name is Bob Becker. I'm an architect and 10 urban planner. I live at 1007 North 42nd Place, 11 Barbee Mill. I'd like to address three things, the 12 scale, the traffic, and the height. 13 For the scale, the proposed project is out of 14 scale with all other residential development from 15 I-90 to Gene Coulon Park with the height limits of 35 16 feet typically all along Lake Washington with the 17 exception of the Seahawks Center. 18 The stated comment on page 3.5-12 states, "The 19 proposed height and bulk and setbacks of development 20 under Alternative 2 would be consistent with the 21 existing urban character of the area and the 22 applicable provisions of the City of Renton 23 regulations, therefore, no significant height and 24 bulk or land use compatibility impacts would be 25 anticipated." Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 10 1 This is probably one of the most blatant untrue 2 statements I've ever seen in an EIS. Barbee Mill to 3 the south has a density of 5 units per acre. 4 Quendall Terminals with Alternative 2, which is 5 reduced, has 37 units per acre, seven times, plus an 6 additional over a quarter of a million square feet of 7 office, plus another retail space, plus another 9,000 8 square feet for restaurant space. The density in 9 this isn't even close. So I don't know who prepared 10 this EIS with that comment, but it seems to be 11 blatantly untrue. 12 Also, in terms of scale, one of the things 13 that's unusual is the main lookout for this Quendall 14 development is a semicircular unit that protrudes out 15 toward Lake Washington, and it's a parking lot. It's 16 a semicircular parking lot. And that's the feature 17 on one of the most beautiful lakes in this country. 18 Traffic, I'd like to address that. On 3.9-1, 19 under roadway condition, it does not list Northeast 20 43rd Street, which is the main north entry to the 21 Barbee Mill and the main south entry to Quendall 22 Terminals. 23 3.9-8, states without the I-405 exit number 7 24 improvement, southbound entry and exit traffic to the 25 Quendall Terminals project would head south on Lake Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 11 1 Washington Blvd. Lake Washington Blvd. is a two-lane 2 road and there's just no way that it will handle this 3 traffic. It would push the traffic down to 30th and 4 then it would drive all that traffic up through that 5 residential area. 6 We're suggesting that the development not be 7 considered until all the I-405 improvements are made. 8 And that's stated in your EIS, that this project 9 should not go forward until I-405 improvements are 10 made. There will easily be up to 700 to 800 feet of 11 traffic blockages along Lake Washington Blvd. as 12 stated in the EIS, 700 to 800 feet. And that's going 13 to back up onto Ripley Lane without serious 14 modifications. 15 South traffic from Quendall Terminals would exit 16 out onto North 43rd Street and there needs to be at 17 least two easterly lanes so that you can turn to the 18 north or to the south. And that whole entrance into 19 43rd would have to be redone in order for this to 20 work properly. 21 You can back up between Lake Washington Blvd. 22 and, coming onto the Barbee Mill, you can back up 23 about 2-1/4 cars. So I don't know where all these 24 cars are going to back up that are coming from Barbee 25 Mill or coming from Quendall development. There's Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 12 1 just no space. It's just not possible. There will 2 be a major traffic jam, especially during peak 3 traffic hours. And, as people mentioned, not only 4 that but then we've got the bicyclists to consider. 5 At this intersection, without proper Quendall 6 Terminals existing distances further, it would be 7 possible for Quendall traffic to shortcut the 8 traffic. So, if they're backed up at 43rd and they 9 can't get onto Lake Washington Blvd., since -- these 10 are city streets, they're not private streets as I 11 understand it, they were all granted to the City of 12 Renton. So the City of Renton controls it. So, 13 people could take a shortcut through Barbee Mill and 14 go off the south exit to get on Lake Washington Blvd. 15 and then go up through those residential areas. I 16 think that this would be an impossible traffic 17 situation. 18 This excess traffic does not belong in either 19 the Barbee Mill residential area or through the 20 residential areas heading up and on east to 30th 21 Street. 22 The number of proposed additional cars will also 23 greatly impact the safety of the pedestrians and bike 24 traffic that frequent the Lake Washington Blvd. bike 25 lanes. On any given summer weekend there are Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 13 1 hundreds of bikers, joggers, and pedestrians with 2 children that frequent these lanes. There are no 3 sidewalks on Lake Washington Blvd. in that area and 4 it's really a traffic hazard as it is. 5 The last thing I'd like to address is the 6 height. The proposed south buildings are shown over 7 35 feet above the existing Barbee Mill Homes, which 8 is the development to the south. This is completely 9 out of scale with the neighborhood, completely out of 10 scale with all the neighborhoods from I-90 all the 11 way down to Gene Coulon Park. Other than the 12 Seahawks training center, there are no other 13 developments along the water with this proposed 14 height or density. It resembles an industrial park 15 and lacks any resemblance to a residential 16 neighborhood. 17 We do not want a development to mimic the 18 proposed hotel along the freeway and the athletic 19 training facility which are referenced in the EIS as 20 the quality that's to be in this area, that's 21 outlined in green on your comprehensive plan. 22 So, in conclusion, the scale, we believe, is 23 completely out of scale with all residential 24 developments. It doubles the height of the Barbee 25 Mill residential development. Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 14 1 And further, there was a rendering that was in 2 the EIS that was this rendering right here. Our home 3 is right here. And we're 35 feet. And if I draw a 4 straight line across, this is 35 feet. So someone 5 needs to go back and redo parts of the EIS to bring 6 it up to the full 70 foot of height. That's figure 7 3.7-2. 8 In conclusion, the five units per acre in Barbee 9 Mill versus 37 units per acre at Quendall Terminals 10 is just totally out of scale. This bears no 11 resemblance to what is stated in the guidelines from 12 the City of Renton. 13 And I've already addressed the traffic. What 14 I'm recommending is that this proposed project be put 15 on hold until all the improvements are made on I-405, 16 until the density and height are reduced, and further 17 impact studies are considered. Thank you. 18 19 Paul Siegmund 20 21 I'm Paul Siegmund from 1006 North 42nd Place, so 22 the Quendall Terminals property is my back fence, and 23 I'm a registered PE in Washington with some 24 observations on that. I'd like to make points about 25 the size and scale and density and the height, the Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 15 1 impact, environmental as well as the impact to 2 traffic, and the presentations within the EIS itself. 3 I have to say Alternative 2 is not significantly 4 different from Alternative 1. It's 85 to 90 percent 5 the size of the first alternative. So I take issue 6 with the applicant's assertion that they have, in 7 fact, created an alternative that serves the required 8 function in the EIS. 9 The entire concept is inappropriate for the 10 character of the local area. At Alternatives 1 and 11 2, the applicant is asserting that it's compatible 12 with the character of the Seahawks and the Landing. 13 Neither of those is relevant or appropriate for what 14 we've got here. The design, the height, the size, 15 and the density would be appropriate, potentially, in 16 a truly urban setting such as you have down near the 17 Landing; but that has it sandwiched between a 18 half-built shopping mall and the country's second 19 largest airplane factory. 20 It would look okay down there. If you look at 21 the drawings, you'll see it rather greatly resembles 22 the apartment complexes which are 6 to 7 stories 23 built on top of one and two-story garages that are 24 halfway to downtown along Factoria. 25 It wouldn't look good in a residential area. It Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 16 1 is destructive to our value and our character. It's 2 essentially a fully urban conglomerate shoehorned 3 into the middle of a residential neighborhood, which 4 is what surrounds this on all sides with the 5 exception of the water. 6 Renton and east side, by the way, already have a 7 fairly large glut of empty offices and small 8 residences. I'm not sure we need any of these as 9 neighbors. And they only get worse when they begin 10 to fill up. 11 Talking about the height and the bulk, not just 12 from the perspective of the presentations that are in 13 the EIS itself, but you have to remember the proposed 14 heights of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 -- which 15 is only a smidge shorter -- is 3/4ths the height of 16 the Seahawks hanger facility, their indoor football 17 field. And it's more than twice that of any of which 18 local residences including Barbee Mill and any of the 19 multiunit, multistory, multifamily complexes that are 20 nearby. 21 Look at the same photo that Bob Becker showed -- 22 and I will be making some of the same points as 23 others have made because we're coming later in the 24 evening -- those heights are not representative. 25 Again, you can't tell by scale from the picture of Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 17 1 Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 that it is such a 2 large fraction of the height of the Seahawks 3 facility. 4 And it looks like it's only 10 to 20 percent 5 taller than the houses at Barbee Mill. It's not. 6 It's twice the size, twice the height of everything 7 that's near it. Nothing on the lake south of 90 8 exceeds 35 to 40 feet with the exception of the big 9 green Seahawks facility. This dwarfs everything 10 nearby with the one exception that doesn't really 11 belong along the side of the lake anyway. 12 Look at the density of the development, the 13 character. Again, Barbee Mill has 114 residential 14 units on 22 acres. That's approximately 5 15 residential units per acre, and there's nothing else 16 there. The Quendall property is looking at 37 17 residential units per acre plus, potentially, up to 18 2000 daily transient people, depending on whether or 19 not the office option is chosen. 20 Even if that's not, the retail and commercial 21 complexes would generate a significant amount of 22 traffic. The residential units that are being 23 proposed average, apparently, around 1,000 square 24 feet. That's pretty high-density housing. Even the 25 nearby high-density housing units along Lake Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 18 1 Washington Blvd. are bigger than that. 2 That invites -- we'll call it a transient 3 commercial or business population that doesn't make a 4 significant local investment in the area, 5 potentially. And it wasn't specified whether those 6 are apartments or condos. 7 But, again, this is a residential neighborhood. 8 It needs to be slung down and it needs to be made a 9 whole lot lower, around 35 to 40 feet, which is 10 what's being built in the area with all that's 11 permitted now. Pardon, it's 30 to 35 feet, where the 12 Barbee Mill properties are 32 to 35 feet in height. 13 Compare it against the Seahawks. Look again at 14 the perspective drawings which I argue make the 15 proposals both look Alternatives 1 and 2 a bit 16 smaller than they actually are. They dwarf the 17 Seahawks facility. Look at the perspective shot from 18 Mercer Island that was in Bob Becker's comments and 19 we'll put it in written comments here as well. I 20 think it's 3.5-12. The complex is 2 to 3 times the 21 width of the huge buildings that the Seahawks built 22 and it's nearly as tall, about through 3/4th the 23 height. That's not apparent in that photo. I take 24 issue with that presentation. 25 Another point to remember about traffic and Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 19 1 about the existence of the Seahawks in our 2 neighborhood, they've got a property that's about 15 3 to 20 acres in size, roughly comparable to the 4 Quendall property, roughly comparable to the Barbee 5 Mill property. They employ 100 to 200 people or so, 6 never all at once, and they're seasonal. They're 7 simply not all there all the time and they're not all 8 there together. 9 Consider the exhibition days that they do in 10 August. A lot of us who live in the north end of 11 town have seen those. All right, according to the 12 Seattle Times, approximately 25,000 people visited 13 the Seahawks on 15 days in August. That's 1,500 to 14 2,000 people on a peak day, probably lower end of 15 that. 16 The Hawks mitigate that by forbidding everybody 17 from driving in and parking. They run security. 18 They run buses. They lease parking down at the 19 Landing, that's it. They even have their own people 20 park off site in the vacant properties over where the 21 hotel might or might not get built one day. 22 Consider this for scale; the normal day at the 23 proposed Quendall property is going to be bigger than 24 the biggest exhibition day that the Seahawks have 25 ever held, every day, seven days a week. Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 20 1 Traffic -- segue to that -- none of the roads 2 are anywhere near adequate to handle the load now. 3 And it's not clear, from my perspective, that any of 4 the proposed improvements to 405 or to 44th Street, 5 which were not all that well addressed in the EIS, 6 the proposals are a little hard -- the State's 7 proposals and plans are hard to estimate, but the 8 estimates aren't there. There's no clarity that says 9 that another, potentially, 2000 cars can fit anywhere 10 in there. What we can see now is that 44the Street 11 exit 7 is not adequate. 43rd Street and Ripley Lane 12 can't handle the traffic that would be generated. 13 Even the Seahawks don't try to bring that in now. 14 If you were to do something, you'd want to 15 consider building another road. They can buy a right 16 of way across the trail. The two proposed roads 17 right at the entrance to Barbee Mill and all the way 18 up at the far end by the powerline right of way are 19 probably the wrong way to gain access to this, but 20 they're at the far end of the complex, so they're not 21 an inconvenience to the associated neighbors. 22 We'd still love to see trails along the rail 23 right of way once, presumably, the trails are 24 removed. There's an awful lot of bike traffic as a 25 couple of people have noted along Lake Washington Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 21 1 Blvd. now. That and walking traffic along what is 2 now the rail right of way, but isn't going to be a 3 rail right of way forever, most likely, that would be 4 a very desirable residential area usage for bicycles 5 and pedestrians to pass by. Their safety would be 6 degraded by the large amount of traffic that this 7 development has proposed would create. 8 There's also some sloppy work in the EIS. The 9 one intersection that we were most concerned about 10 from Barbee Mill was 43rd Street because it's the one 11 that leads into our neighborhood. It's missing from 12 the data tables. It's tagged as number 4, 13 intersection number 4, for the studies, but there are 14 no data presented. It's just gone when the tables 15 were put together. 16 And further, they even proposed using 30th 17 Street, the ramp to 405 as freeway access for the 18 proposal. In order to get there, are they talking 19 about high-speed traffic through the Kennydale 20 neighborhoods. Come on. You can't be serious about 21 that. 22 Issues with the presentation, again. They speak 23 of buildings shown at 64 feet in height. There are 24 dimensional drawings done by the architect. The 25 dimension marks don't even go all the way to the tops Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 22 1 of the buildings. Buildings that are shown as 64 2 feet in height and labeled as such have elevator 3 machinery rooms, roof peaks, and the final grade 4 that's not accounted for, the building tops that are 5 written at 64 in Alternative 2, are really closer to 6 80 feet above the current grade. 7 That doesn't show. It's not even stated in the 8 pictures. Remember, Barbee Mill is only 32 to 35 9 feet above the grade as you see now. The Seahawks 10 are 115 feet. The applicant is speaking of 64, but 11 doing math that adds up to more like 80, drawing 12 photo renderings of -- I'm not exactly sure what, but 13 looks more like 45 to 50 feet in the picture taken 14 from Mercer Island. That one is simply inaccurate. 15 There is no mention in the EIS of wildlife that 16 are on the property. There are at least three bald 17 eagles, a family of osprey, there are deer. We see 18 them every day. There's no mention of their 19 existence. There's no mention of potential 20 mitigations to, or harm against them, as a result of 21 a property that gets built. 22 Also, it looks like the wetland areas that are 23 cited on the map are a lot smaller than they truly 24 are. If anybody cares to take a look at the 25 property, borrow a helicopter or just drive along the Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 23 1 edge of it. You'll see a lot more water there today 2 than shows on those maps. 3 None of that, of course, is suitable for a 4 parking lot or for buildings. There is at least, my 5 estimation, at least an acre of water along the 6 southwest corner of the property commencing at about, 7 I'd say, 50 feet north of the south fence and 8 extending well across the point. We don't have the 9 map up, but extending east and extending north. 10 And, again, the impact statement is simply 11 false. It shows up on in section 3.5 and the similar 12 assertions show up throughout the document. "The 13 proposed height and bulk would be consistent with the 14 existing urban character of the area and the 15 applicable provisions of the City of Renton 16 regulations?" Not exactly sure what the regulations 17 limit, but the existing character is not urban and it 18 certainly doesn't accommodate 9 more buildings that 19 look like the apartment complexes down at the 20 Landing. 21 "And therefore no significant height and bulk or 22 land use compatibility impacts would be anticipated." 23 They could very easily be anticipated if one were to 24 look. But, my goodness, the statement is patently 25 false and the whole EIS appears to rest on that. Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 24 1 Thank you. 2 3 Rich Wagner 4 5 Good evening. I'm Rich Wagner, 2411 Garden 6 Court North. I live in Lower Kennydale, Renton. I'm 7 a fellow in the American Institute of Architects. 8 I've been living in Renton now since 1983 when I 9 married a Renton girl. I have a little more years 10 here than I might look. I spent four years on the 11 Renton Board of Adjustment and 14 years on the Renton 12 Planning Commission. 13 I desperately want to agree with much of what 14 the last speaker said in terms of the adequacies and 15 the accuracies, but I'm not going to repeat all that, 16 which was very well put, thank you. 17 But I would like to add a little history. And I 18 think it's the history that's really missing in this 19 whole discussion. And I totally agree that much of 20 the history will not be in agreement with the 21 comments that I've already heard tonight. 22 It was 1981, 30 years ago, that the Renton 23 Planning Commission and the City Council approved the 24 project known then as Port Quendall. That project, 25 for this particular portion of the site, not the Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 25 1 whole site, but just this portion, was approved for 2 200,000 square feet of office; 120,000 square feet of 3 retail; and 220 housing units. I think that's part 4 of the context that this site should be viewed in. 5 Furthermore, in 1993, the commission and the 6 council approved a rezone for this site to COR. Now, 7 I think the most important thing to know about COR 8 was nobody knew exactly what the market would demand, 9 but this site and one other site in the city were 10 thought to be prime redevelopment sites in a major 11 and dramatic way. 12 I remember certain comments about the Port 13 Quendall site was that should be the site where Sound 14 Transit would stop, somewhere between downtown Renton 15 and downtown Bellevue. I think that's the drama 16 which is really missing in this. 17 Now, one could argue, well, 30 years is a long 18 time ago. Doesn't matter anymore. I think I could 19 also argue that some of the development that has 20 happened in the other COR properties basically 21 underbuilt. And I'm not so sure this last piece 22 should be penalized because of others' choices. 23 So, let me say that I do support this 24 application. Let me also say that I think it's got 25 some room for improvement. Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 26 1 In particular, I personally would have liked to 2 have seen the EIS analyze up to 100,000 square feet 3 of retail. I know that whatever will go there will 4 be market driven, but this area is severely 5 underserved by retail services. If a large retail, 6 either a gym or a health club or a grocery store -- 7 which everybody says will never come -- but even if 8 they wanted to come, that would trigger a revisiting 9 of this document because of its size. And I think 10 that would be most unfortunate. 11 The other thing that I'd like to highlight in 12 the traffic report, with all deferences to my friends 13 at TENW, the traffic engineers; I'm not clear how the 14 calculation can show that the diverted traffic -- I 15 understand the internal traffic diversions because, 16 you know, if you're working upstairs and you go down 17 to get a cup of coffee, then that is not a vehicle 18 trip to the coffee shop. 19 But they indicate that the diverted trips from 20 the Lake Washington Blvd. come up to about 9 and as 21 high as 17 percent of all the traffic on Lake 22 Washington Blvd. That seems like a real stretch to 23 me, particularly when one recognizes that it's not 24 like you're just -- in most traffic analysis, you're 25 simply turning off the driveway into the shopping Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 27 1 center. 2 In this particular one, you're turning off the 3 driveway onto the side lane, then down a path, then 4 into a retail center. And to get that much diversion 5 traffic, which is actually subtracted then from the 6 calculation of traffic, I think is flawed. 7 Most importantly, I want to -- I've not heard 8 any comments tonight about the traffic report and how 9 it deals with Park Avenue North. And I think this 10 definitely needs to be reviewed. I do agree with the 11 comments that the mitigations that are proposed for 12 the 405 Lake Washington Blvd, they seem inadequate. 13 But, not being a traffic engineer, however, being a 14 user, they continue to seem inadequate. 15 The link that I'm most concerned about is if 16 you're going down Lake Washington Blvd. and you're 17 headed to downtown Renton, yes, you probably would 18 take the route that they show south of Lake 19 Washington Blvd. 20 However, if you're headed south to 405, that's 21 not the path of first choice even today. The path is 22 you go up the hill at 40th and go south along Park 23 Avenue North until it hits 30th, and then you enter 24 the freeway from there. 25 Park Avenue North isn't even discussed. And on Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 28 1 some maps, it's not even named. And it is a minor 2 arterial in the city, and I think it needs to be 3 addressed. 4 Even with those comments, though, I believe 5 that -- no, I think that these impacts can be 6 properly mitigated if they're properly identified and 7 properly managed. Thank you. 8 9 Larry Reymann 10 11 Hi, my name a Larry Reymann. I live at 1313 12 North 38th Street in Kennydale, Renton, and I really 13 do appreciate the opportunity to provide some input 14 here. And I also appreciate the opportunity to hear 15 the other people's points of view. 16 I think there are some extremely valid questions 17 that are being raised about this. They seem to come 18 from the density that the applicant is trying to 19 accomplish. And the things that I want to talk about 20 are habitat, about -- I know that there is mention of 21 access to the shoreline. The devil is in the details 22 on that. There is probably less than 10 percent of 23 the shoreline Lake Washington as natural habitat. 24 And if you took Coulon Park out of that equation, you 25 would probably have even a smaller percentage of Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 29 1 shoreline. And this shoreline, with native species 2 landscaping that enhances habitat rather than 3 competes with it, are critical for the species that 4 live in May Creek and inhabit that shoreline. 5 I am a salmon watcher on May Creek and there are 6 Sockeye runs, there are Chinook runs, there are Coho 7 runs. The Chinook and the Coho are hanging on by 8 their fingernails. I saw one Coho this year in that 9 creek. I saw no Chinook. There were Sockeye, but 10 these species require native plants along the 11 shoreline. And you can see what's happened in 12 Bellevue and Kirkland where development has taken 13 place without accommodating habitat concerns. 14 What it appears, from what people have said, is 15 that this kind of density can't be accommodated with 16 single occupancy vehicles. I think there has to be 17 some sort of mechanism to get people out of their 18 cars and some sort of mechanism to allow mass transit 19 if you're talking about any kind of development with 20 this level of density. 21 The neighborhood is already gridlocked for long 22 stretches of time. 405 is gridlocked for 5 or 6 23 hours out of the day. And until we address the 24 reality of the necessity of mass transit, development 25 is only going to aggravate a very, very negative Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 30 1 situation. 2 So those are the things that I want to address 3 and the concerns I have, is a developing that 4 shoreline in terms of habitat, public access to that 5 shoreline -- public access that is meaningful. I'm 6 not talking about, Here's a path and you've got 10 7 feet of shoreline have a nice picnic. It has to be 8 available for the city's citizens. 9 Tax dollars are what's paying for this cleanup. 10 The public has a right to see a benefit from that 11 kind of expenditure. So we would very much like to 12 see public access to the shoreline and development 13 with a very strong sensitivity to the habitat that 14 these native species require in order to survive. 15 And, again, thank you for the opportunity. I 16 look forward to this process moving forward because 17 it is obviously a lot of people with strong, strong 18 stake in this development, and I think they are 19 obviously very, very committed to making Renton a 20 better place to live. Thank you. 21 22 23 24 25 Van Pelt, Corbett, Bellows 206-682-9339 * www.vanpeltdep.com * 888-4WA-dep 31 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS 3 COUNTY OF KING ) 4 I, William McLaughlin, a Notary Public in and for 5 the State of Washington, do hereby certify: 6 That these proceedings were recorded 7 electronically and thereafter transcribed stenographically 8 under my direction; 9 That the foregoing transcript is a true record of 10 all public comments made on the record to the best of my 11 ability. 12 I further certify that I am in no way related to 13 any party to this matter nor to any of counsel, nor do I 14 have any interest in the matter. 15 Witness my hand and seal this 20th day of 16 January, 2011. 17 ______________________________ 18 William McLaughlin, Notary Public in and for the State 19 of Washington, residing at Seattle. Commission 20 expires July 10, 2011. 21 22 23 24 25 Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-511 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT 1 Carol O’Connell 1. The primary access to the Quendall Terminals Project would be via the Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street intersection. As indicated in EIS Addendum Section 4.8, Transportation, and Appendix E, site access via the existing N 43rd Street onto Lake Washington Boulevard would also be provided with an estimated 25 percent of all project traffic utilizing this access. With this estimated distribution of traffic, no significant traffic operational impacts are forecast to occur at the secondary access point via Barbee Mill onto Lake Washington Boulevard (N 43rd Street) with the proposed project. Subsequent to the issuance of the EIS Addendum, the City of Renton completed the 2014 Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton and determined that the Quendall Terminals Project should install a traffic signal at the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection as opposed to the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. However, if the traffic signal and configuration of N 43rd Street have not been constructed prior to WSDOT improvements at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, the City will consider changing the location of this signal to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard. An engineering study will be completed at that time to support the determination of the location for the installation of the traffic signal at either the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection or the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection (see FEIS Appendix C for details). As noted in FEIS Table 2-2, significant vehicle queuing of 800 feet or more is estimated to occur on Ripley Lane as a result of the additional project traffic without any mitigation. With the identified project traffic mitigation, vehicle queuing would be reduced substantially and general traffic operations and queuing would fall within acceptable traffic operational conditions, estimated at approximately 200 feet for the southbound left turn queues on Ripley Lane (see FEIS Table 2-2). As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures. (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 2. The project mitigation measures include providing frontage improvements along a number of existing public rights-of-way to current City standards. Additional sidewalk improvements, pedestrian crossing accommodations, as well as illumination upgrades would occur along widened sections of Lake Washington Boulevard and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramp intersections as part of signal installation and channelization improvements. Under State law, this project cannot be required to address any existing deficiencies in off-site non-motorized facilities. See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including transportation-related mitigation measures. 3. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-512 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s overall scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family residences. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-513 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT 2 Gary Pipkin 1. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s overall scale which would be larger than certain surrounding development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family residences. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details, and FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. While it is acknowledged that certain views would be obstructed by the proposed development, the Preferred Alternative includes several modifications that would enhance the visual character of the development and provide increased views through the site. Certain view corridors through the site would be larger under the Preferred Alternative than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. The proposed view corridor along Street “B” (the main east/west roadway) would be approximately 74 feet wide under the Preferred Alternative (approximately 8 feet wider than the corridor under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2). View corridors along the southern boundary of the site would also be maximized to the extent feasible, similar to under DEIS Alternative 2. These larger view corridors would allow for greater views through the site towards Lake Washington as compared to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. 2. The project mitigation measures include providing frontage improvements along a number of existing public rights-of-way to current City standards. Additional sidewalk improvements, pedestrian crossing accommodations, as well as illumination upgrades would occur along widened sections of Lake Washington Boulevard and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 ramp intersections as part of signal installation and channelization improvements. Under State law, this project cannot be required to address any existing deficiencies in off-site non-motorized facilities. See FEIS Chapter 1 - pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including transportation-related mitigation measures. 3. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 2 in the Commentary. To mitigate traffic impacts to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor south of the development, the applicant would install traffic calming treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 41st Street to encourage primary trips generated by the project to use the I-405 corridor. Although the City of Renton has no adopted residential traffic management program, arterial calming measures could include treatments that create either horizontal or vertical deflection for drivers. Such treatments could include, but are not limited to chicanes, serpentine raised curb sections, raised median treatments, Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-514 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments speed tables, and speed humps. The final design of traffic calming elements would be approved by the City. 4. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum do not recommend routing any project traffic to the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange system. The analyses do indicate that without any I-405 Improvements by WSDOT or intersection improvements at the ramp junctions at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, project-generated traffic to/from the south of the project site is forecast to shift to access the freeway at the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange as well as other parallel routes east and west of I-405 during peak commute periods. This potential diversion of traffic was found to have no significant adverse traffic impacts on the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor or key intersections that would serve these diverted trips via Burnett Avenue N and N 30th Street (see DEIS Appendix H and EIS Addendum Appendix E for details). Also see the FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation page 2-10) for additional analysis of the Park Avenue N corridor and the N 30th Street/I-405 ramps. 5. As noted in the EIS Addendum, Section 4.8 Transportation, and Appendix E, the proposed parking supply under the Preferred Alternative would meet minimum off-street requirements per City code, as well as under the parking demand analysis using standard transportation engineering methods. Shared parking agreements between on- site uses and implementation of transportation demand management (TDM) measures (for proposed commercial and residential uses) could reduce parking demand during peak periods, thereby reducing the necessary parking supply and demand. There are no plans by the applicant to charge for parking and the analysis contained within the EIS reflects this assumption. 6. Haul routes were not addressed in the DEIS or EIS Addendum; however, trucks are anticipated to use I-405 and would not use Park Avenue. All truck routes would be required to be approved by the City of Renton prior to construction permit issuance. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-515 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT 3 Len Reid 1. Your comment is noted for the record. Project mitigation measures have been identified to minimize the potential transportation impacts of the project, including a paved bicycle lane along the east and west sides of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard from the end of the current bike trail along Ripley Lane to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard or a multi-use path on one side or separated from Ripley Lane (see mitigation measure H10 in FEIS Chapter 1). See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including transportation-related mitigation measures. 2. Street lighting would be provided as a mitigation measure with the proposed project. See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including light and glare-related mitigation measures. The primary access to the Quendall Terminals Project would be via the Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street intersection. As indicated in EIS Addendum Section 4.8, Transportation, and Appendix E, site access via the existing N 43rd Street onto Lake Washington Boulevard would also be provided with an estimated 25 percent of all project traffic using this access. With this estimated distribution of traffic, no significant traffic operational impacts are forecast to occur at the secondary access point via Barbee Mill onto Lake Washington Boulevard (N 43rd Street) with the proposed project. Subsequent to the issuance of the EIS Addendum, the City of Renton completed the 2014 Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton and determined that the Quendall Terminals Project should install a traffic signal at the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection as opposed to the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. However, if the traffic signal and configuration of N 43rd Street have not been constructed prior to WSDOT improvements at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, the City will consider changing the location of this signal to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard. An engineering study will be completed at that time to support the determination of the location for the installation of the traffic signal at either the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection or the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection (see FEIS Appendix C for details). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 3. Traffic signalization mitigation measures have been identified that would be implemented with or without the WSDOT I-405 Improvements. With I-405 improvements, it is assumed that a signal would be constructed at the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection as part of the I-405 Improvements. Without I-405 Improvements, development of the Preferred Alternative would include new traffic signals at the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection, as well as the I-405 northbound and southbound ramp intersections (see FEIS Figure 2-2). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-516 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 4. Project mitigation measures include providing approximately 10.6 acres of “Natural Public Open Space Areas” and “Other Related Areas”, including a trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area that would be accessible to the public (if the trail is authorized by EPA’s Record of Decision [ROD] or any Natural Resource Damages [NRD] settlement). If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail would be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings, and could be combined with the fire access road. The trail would connect to the recently constructed May Creek Trail and in the future would link the area to Cougar Mountain. Semi-private landscaped courtyards would be provided as shared open space for project residents. Approximately 1.8 acres of indoor and/or outdoor area would be provided onsite for active recreation (i.e., Frisbee, swimming pools, tot lots, bocce ball courts, exercise rooms, active recreation in courtyards, etc.), as approved by the City’s responsible public official (see FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative). 5. The Preferred Alternative would include design features that would enhance the compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding uses, particularly residential uses to the south of the site. New driveways, landscaping, surface parking areas and proposed building setback areas would be designed and constructed to provide a buffer between the proposed buildings and adjacent land uses. In particular, proposed building setbacks from the southern property line would be approximately 40 feet from the one- story parking garage in the southeastern portion of the site and approximately 200 feet from portions of the four-story residential Building SW4in the southwestern portion of the site. Proposed landscaping would be designed to provide a partial visual screen between the proposed buildings and adjacent buildings to the north and south to maintain privacy between the properties. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-517 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT 4 Ron Nicol 1. Project mitigation measures have been identified to minimize potential transportation impacts that could result with redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative. With implementation of these measures, traffic facilities within the area would operate within accepted standards, with or without future I-405 Improvements. The mitigation measures include: roadway widening, intersection channelization, traffic control treatments, non-motorized improvements, traffic management measures, public transportation opportunities, traffic impact fee requirements, and on-site parking management techniques. See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including transportation-related mitigation measures. As indicated in the EIS Addendum, with implementation of identified project mitigation measures, significant transportation- related impacts would not be anticipated. 2. The primary access to the Quendall Terminals Project would be via the Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street intersection. As indicated in EIS Addendum Section 4.8, Transportation, and Appendix E, site access via the existing N 43rd Street onto Lake Washington Boulevard would also be provided with an estimated 25 percent of all project traffic using this access. With this estimated distribution of traffic, no significant traffic operational impacts are forecast to occur at the secondary access point via Barbee Mill onto Lake Washington Boulevard (N 43rd Street) with the proposed project. As shown in FEIS Table 2-5, existing and future traffic delay in the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange area would improve substantially with implementation of the identified project mitigation measures. Subsequent to the issuance of the EIS Addendum, the City of Renton completed the 2014 Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton and determined that the Quendall Terminals Project should install a traffic signal at the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection as opposed to the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. However, if the traffic signal and configuration of N 43rd Street have not been constructed prior to WSDOT improvements at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, the City will consider changing the location of this signal to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard. An engineering study will be completed at that time to support the determination of the location for the installation of the traffic signal at either the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection or the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection (see FEIS Appendix C for details). As part of the project-related mitigation measures, frontage improvements would be provided along existing adjacent public rights-of-way to current City standards. Additional sidewalk improvements, pedestrian crossing accommodations, as well as illumination upgrades would be provided along widened sections of Lake Washington Boulevard and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 Ramp intersections as part of signal installation and channelization improvements. In addition, bicycle lanes would be provided along the east and west sides of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard from the end of the current bike path along Ripley Lane to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard or a multi-use path could be developed on one side or separated from Ripley Lane. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-518 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments A LOS analyses of traffic operations at the I-405 southbound and northbound ramps on NE 44th Street was conducted and associated transportation-related project mitigation measures were identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum, With implementation of the identified mitigation measures, transportation facilities in the Exit 7 area would operate at acceptable levels. (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 3. Project mitigation measures include providing frontage improvements along a number of existing public rights-of-way to current City standards. Additional sidewalk improvements, pedestrian crossing accommodations, as well as illumination upgrades would be provided along widened sections of Lake Washington Boulevard as part of signal installation and channelization improvements. Signal installation and channelization improvements would improve the left-turning movements from Lake Washington Boulevard. See FEIS Chapter 1 – pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including transportation-related mitigation measures. 4. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s overall scale which would be larger than certain development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family residences. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details, and see FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. While it is acknowledged that certain views would be obstructed by the proposed development, the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes several modifications that would enhance the visual character of the development and provide increased views through the site. Certain view corridors through the site would be larger under the Preferred Alternative than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. The proposed view corridor along Street “B” (the main east/west roadway) would be approximately 74 feet wide under the Preferred Alternative (approximately 8 feet wider than the corridor under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2). View corridors along the southern boundary of the site would also be maximized to the extent feasible, similar to under DEIS Alternative 2. These larger view corridors would allow for greater views through the site towards Lake Washington as compared to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 (see EIS Addendum Section 3.2, Aesthetics/Views, for details). Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-519 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 5. Please see the response to Comment 4 in this letter regarding the proposed height, bulk and scale of the proposed development. Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative based on comments from the public, and continued coordination with and input from EPA and the City of Renton. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum includes 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 redevelopment with surrounding uses (i.e., reduction of overall development level, modulation of building heights across the site, modifications in building materials, inclusion of building setbacks, and addition of landscaping). Specifically, as part of the site design for the Preferred Alternative, taller buildings (5 to 6-stories high) would be located in the central portion of the site, and a shorter Building SW4 (4-stories high) would be located in the southwestern portion of the site (i.e. adjacent to Barbee Mill) to enhance the project’s compatibility with surrounding land uses. Proposed building setbacks and landscaped areas from the north and south site property lines would also provide a buffer and partial visual screen between the site and adjacent properties. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-520 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT 5 Bob Becker 1. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., in 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s overall scale which would be larger than certain development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family residences. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2=24) for details, and see FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 2. Please see the response to Comment 1 of this letter regarding the proposed height, bulk and scale of the Preferred Alternative. 3. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIS Addendum included a revised view corridor along Street “B” that would include a roundabout with landscaping at the terminus of Street “B”, without parking. See EIS Addendum Figure 2-8 and 2-9 for a conceptual view along Street “B”. 4. The Lake Washington Boulevard/N 43rd Street (Barbee Mill Access) intersection was included in the transportation analyses as Intersection #4. Mitigation measures for Lake Washington Boulevard between N 43rd Street and Ripley Lane and I-405 southbound ramps are identified in this FEIS. See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including transportation- related mitigation measures. 5. The transportation analyses indicates that without any I-405 Improvements by WSDOT or intersection improvements at the ramp junctions at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, project-generated traffic to/from the south of the project site is forecast to shift to access the freeway at the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange as well as other parallel routes east and west of I-405 during peak commute periods. This potential diversion of traffic was found to have no significant adverse traffic impacts on the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor or key intersections that would serve these diverted trips via Burnett Avenue N and N 30th Street (see DEIS Appendix H and EIS Addendum Appendix E for details). Also see the FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation page 2-10) for additional analysis of the Park Avenue N corridor and the N 30th Street/I-405 ramps. To mitigate traffic impacts to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor south of the development, the applicant would install traffic calming treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 41st Street to encourage primary trips generated by the project to use the I-405 corridor (see Transportation mitigation measure H5 in FEIS Chapter 1). Final design of traffic calming elements would be approved by the City. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-521 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 6. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum assumed two transportation scenarios: 1) future development of the Quendall Terminals site with the WSDOT NE 44th Street/I-405 Improvements, and 2) future development without the NE 44th Street/I- 405 Improvements. Mitigation measures were identified for both scenarios. See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including transportation-related mitigation measures. 7. As noted in Table 2-2, significant vehicle queuing of 800 feet or more is estimated to occur on Ripley Lane as a result of the additional project traffic without any mitigation. With project traffic mitigation, vehicle queuing would be reduced substantially and general traffic operations and queuing would fall within acceptable traffic operational conditions (estimated at approximately 200 feet for the southbound left turn queues on Ripley Lane). 8. The primary access to the Quendall Terminals Project would be via the Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street intersection. As indicated in EIS Addendum Section 4.8, Transportation, and Appendix E, site access via the existing N 43rd Street onto Lake Washington Boulevard would also be provided with an estimated 25 percent of all project traffic using this access. With this estimated distribution of traffic, no significant traffic operational impacts are forecast to occur at the secondary access point via Barbee Mill onto Lake Washington Boulevard (N 43rd Street) with the proposed project. Subsequent to the issuance of the EIS Addendum, the City of Renton completed the 2014 Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton and determined that the Quendall Terminals Project should install a traffic signal at the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection as opposed to the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. However, if the traffic signal and configuration of N 43rd Street have not been constructed prior to WSDOT improvements at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, the City will consider changing the location of this signal to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard. An engineering study will be completed at that time to support the determination of the location for the installation of the traffic signal at either the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection or the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection (see FEIS Appendix C for details). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 9. Please see the response to Comment 8 in this letter. 10. Your comment is noted for the record. 11. Your comment is noted for the record. 12. Accessing the Quendall Terminals site through the Barbee Mill neighborhood, as an alternative to travelling along Lake Washington Boulevard, represents approximately 800 lineal feet between N 41st Street and N 43rd Street. It is not expected that using a circuitous route through the Barbee Mill neighborhood would be a better choice for such Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-522 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments a short distance. The traffic operational analysis conducted for the DEIS and EIS Addendum (see Appendices H and E to those documents, respectively) concluded that with implementation of the project mitigation measures and/or WSDOT I-405 Improvements, forecasted LOS on nearby intersections and arterials would not result in any significant adverse traffic impacts along Lake Washington Boulevard. 13. Your comment is noted for the record. 14. Project mitigation measures include providing frontage improvements along a number of existing public rights-of-way to current City standards. Additional sidewalk improvements, pedestrian crossing accommodations, as well as illumination upgrades would be provided along widened sections of Lake Washington Boulevard and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 Ramp intersections as part of signal installation and channelization improvements. In addition, bicycle lanes would also be provided along the east and west sides of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard from the end of the current bike trail along Ripley Lane to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard or a multi-use path could be developed on one side or separated from Ripley Lane. Under State law, this project cannot be required to address any existing deficiencies in off-site non-motorized facilities. See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including transportation-related mitigation measures. 15. Please see the response to Comment 1 in this letter. 16. Your comment is noted for the record. 17. Your comment is noted for the record. 18. An updated visual analysis was conducted for the EIS Addendum (EIS Addendum Section 3.2). The methods for the visual simulations were confirmed in the EIS Addendum, including confirming the accuracy of the 3D model and the camera’s alignment and location. A perspective illustration was also created to demonstrate that the visual simulations accurately depict the views from the selected viewpoints (see EIS Addendum Figure 3.2-2). This illustration shows the view of the proposed development from Mercer Island (Viewpoint 1) and incorporates a 125-foot high scale, broken into 10- foot increments, that extends along the shoreline, through the center of the site, and along the site’s rear property line. As shown in the illustration, the massing of the buildings in the Barbee Mill development (approximately 36 feet high) coincide with floor three and four of the Preferred Alternative. See FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Aesthetics/Views Response 2 – page 2-29) for details on the visual simulations. 19. Your comment is noted for the record. 20. Your comment is noted for the record. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-523 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT 6 Paul Siegmund 1. Your comment is noted for the record. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-440(5)(b), DEIS Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative represents reasonable alternatives that would attain the applicant’s objectives at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation. 2. It is acknowledged that proposed development of the Quendall Terminals site under the Preferred Alternative would be greater in overall scale than surrounding development in the site vicinity. However, proposed individual buildings under the Preferred Alternative would generally be similar or less tall and bulky than commercial and multifamily buildings in the site vicinity (i.e., the 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 in the site vicinity (i.e., in Barbee Mill). Proposed development would also be consistent with the COR zoning for the site despite the project’s overall scale which would be larger than certain development in the site vicinity, and the project’s individual buildings which would be taller and bulkier than surrounding single-family residences. With implementation of the project mitigation measures, significant land use impacts would not be anticipated. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk, and Scale Response 1 – page 2-24) for details and see FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative. 3. Your comment is noted for the record. 4. Your comment is noted for the record. 5. Your comment is noted for the record. 6. Your comment is noted for the record. 7. An updated visual analysis was conducted for the EIS Addendum (EIS Addendum Section 3.2). The methods for the visual simulations were confirmed in the EIS Addendum process, including confirming the accuracy of the 3D model and the camera’s alignment and location. A perspective illustration was also created to demonstrate that the visual simulations accurately depict the views from the selected viewpoints (see EIS Addendum Figure 3.2-2). This illustration shows the view of the proposed development from Mercer Island (Viewpoint 1) and incorporates a 125-foot high scale, broken into 10- foot increments, that extends along the shoreline, through the center of the site, and along the site’s rear property line. As shown in the illustration, the massing of the buildings in the Barbee Mill development (approximately 36 feet high) coincide with floor three and four of the Preferred Alternative. See FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Aesthetics/Views Response 2 – page 2-29) for details on the visual simulations. 8. Please see the response to Comment 7 in this letter. 9. Your comment is noted for the record. 10. Please see the response to Comment 2 in this letter. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-524 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments 11. Your comment is noted for the record. 12. Your comment is noted for the record. The applicant has the option to develop either apartments or condominiums as part of the proposal and the specific type of residential use is not regulated by the RMC. 13. Please see the response to Comment 2 in this letter. 14. Please see the responses to Comment 2 and 7 in this letter. 15. Existing traffic counts were conducted at all of the study intersections in 2009 and 2010 for the DEIS. To supplement these counts and address public concerns, additional traffic counts were collected in August of 2012 while Seahawks Training Camp was in session. Traffic operational analysis and forecasts in the EIS Addendum and this FEIS were adjusted to reflect this worst-case condition that occurs only during limited periods during August. The transportation analyses in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and this FEIS represent a comprehensive review of transportation impacts of existing and future traffic operations in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site. They specifically account for general and discrete pipeline development (including Barbee Mill, Hawks Landing and the Kennydale Apartments); have been updated to account for peak utilization of the Seahawks Training Facility; consider regional growth and traffic demand in the vicinity with and without future planned WSDOT widening of I-405; and, reflect the latest available regional forecasts of population and employment levels throughout the Puget Sound (see DEIS Appendix H, EIS Addendum Appendix E, and FEIS Appendix B for details). 16. Please see the response to Comment 15 in this letter. 17. Please see the response to Comment 15 in this letter. 18. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum assumed two transportation scenarios: 1) future development of the Quendall Terminals site with the WSDOT NE 44th Street/I-405 Improvements, and 2) future development without the NE 44th Street/I- 405 Improvements. Mitigation measures were identified for both scenarios. See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including transportation-related mitigation measures. The proposed primary site access would be via the Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street intersection. Access via N 43rd Street would also be provided, with an estimated 25 percent of all project traffic using this access. As shown in the DEIS and EIS Addendum, with this estimated distribution of project traffic, no substantial traffic operational impacts are anticipated at the existing Barbee Mill access (N 43rd Street). Subsequent to the issuance of the EIS Addendum, the City of Renton completed the 2014 Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton and determined that the Quendall Terminals Project should install a traffic signal at the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection as opposed to the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection. However, if the traffic signal and configuration of N 43rd Street have not been constructed prior to WSDOT improvements at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, the City will consider changing the location of this signal to the intersection of Ripley Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-525 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard. An engineering study will be completed at that time to support the determination of the location for the installation of the traffic signal at either the N 43rd Street/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection or the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection (see FEIS Appendix C for details). (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 19. Site access between Lake Washington Boulevard and NE 44th Street is complicated by the existing railroad right-of-way that is currently owned by King County. Under State Law, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) controls all existing and new access rights over railroad rights-of-way. As such, site access is limited to existing approved public or private crossings when approved or vested access is granted under the WUTC. 20. Project mitigation measures include providing frontage improvements along a number of existing public rights-of-way to current City standards. Additional sidewalk improvements, pedestrian crossing accommodations, as well as illumination upgrades would occur along widened sections of Lake Washington Boulevard and at the NE 44th Street/I-405 Ramp intersections as part of signal installation and channelization improvements. In addition, bicycle lanes would be provided along the east and west sides of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard from the end of the current bike path along Ripley Lane to the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard or a multi-use path could be developed on one side or separated from Ripley Lane. Under State law, this project cannot be required to address any existing deficiencies in off-site non-motorized facilities. See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including transportation-related mitigation measures. 21. The Lake Washington Boulevard/N 43rd Street (Barbee Mill Access) intersection was included in the transportation analyses as Intersection #4. DEIS Tables 3.9-3 and 3.9-4 included data on the LOS impacts of the proposal at Intersection #4 and other study area intersections. An updated traffic analysis was provided in the EIS Addendum (EIS Addendum Tables 3.4-2 and 3.4-3) and included updated LOS impacts for Intersection #4 and other study area intersections. 22. The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum do not recommend routing any project traffic to the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange system. The analyses do indicate that without any I-405 Improvements by WSDOT or intersection improvements at the ramp junctions at the NE 44th Street/I-405 interchange, project-generated traffic to/from the south of the project site is forecast to shift to access the freeway at the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange as well as other parallel routes east and west of I-405 during peak commute periods. This potential diversion of traffic was found to have no significant adverse traffic impacts on the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor or key intersections that would serve these diverted trips via Burnett Avenue N and N 30th Street (see DEIS Appendix H and EIS Addendum Appendix E for details). Also see the Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-526 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation page 2-10) for additional analysis of the Park Avenue N corridor and the N 30th Street/I-405 ramps. 23. Please see the response to Comment 7 in this letter. It should be noted that the building height measurements are calculated from the grade plane to the average height of the highest roof top area per RMC 4-11-020 24. Please see the response to Comment 7 in this letter. 25. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2009; also 2012) Priority Habitats and Species database shows no documented occurrences of priority species or habitats on the site or in the immediate vicinity, other than the presence of wetlands onsite along the lakeshore and listed fish species offsite within Lake Washington to the west and May Creek to the south. Bald eagles (a state sensitive species) may occasionally perch on the site, but the nearest known breeding site occurs on Mercer Island approximately one mile to the west, across Lake Washington. Although indicated as potentially occurring within King County by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012), the gray wolf has not been consistently or reliably documented within King County, particularly within the urbanized Puget Sound lowlands. Known or suspected occurrences of these wolves in Washington center on more remote, forested habitats in the north Cascades, and none have been recorded anywhere near the project site. Ospreys are known to occur in the area, and may use nest platforms constructed along the south end of the Seahawks Training Facility to the north and near the mouth of May Creek on the old Barbee Mill property to the south. DEIS Section 3.2, Critical Areas, and Appendix E evaluated the impacts of the proposed project on wildlife habitat. As described in that document, all of the existing vegetation communities would be removed as part of the remediation plan, prior to site development. EPA will evaluate the impacts of vegetation removal and associated wildlife/habitat impacts due cleanup/remediation activities, as well as the re- establishment of shoreline habitat, through a separate review process. Based on the cleanup/remediation process to date, remediation could include capping of the site area west of Lake Washington Boulevard, and re-establishment/expansion of wetland and upland habitat along the shoreline of the lake. Thus, the presumed existing/baseline condition for impact analysis in the EIS is post-remediation, and the majority of the site is expected to consist of bare soil, except along the Lake Washington shore, where a shoreline restoration plan will be implemented. The upland portion of the Main Property could be temporarily re-vegetated via seeding of herbaceous species following remediation to prevent erosion and sedimentation, depending on the anticipated timing of redevelopment. Consequently, redevelopment of the upland areas onsite is not expected to remove significant habitat features or displace wildlife from these areas. 26. The wetland delineation that was included in the DEIS was conducted according to the methods defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Corps 2008), and DOE’s Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual ( DOE 1997). The method for delineating wetlands is based on the presence of three parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Hydrophytic vegetation is “the macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-527 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present.” Hydric soils are “formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.” Wetland hydrology “encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface for a sufficient duration during the growing season” (DOE 1997). As noted in the wetland delineation report, there is a network of roads at the Quendall Terminals site, with much of the area previously used for log sorting and storage, resulting in compacted soil on much of the site. Water ponds in these areas due to the compacted soil, but wetland data plots collected in these areas did not contain wetland characteristics for all three parameters. Therefore, although these areas are wet much of the time, they do not meet the parameters noted above to be considered wetlands. 27. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 2 in this letter. 28. Your comment is noted for the record. See the response to Comment 2 in this letter. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-528 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT 7 Rich Wagner 1.Your comment is noted for the record. 2.Your comment is noted for the record. See FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Height, Bulk and Scale 1 – page 2-24) for details on the zoning history of the site. 3.Your comment is noted for the record. 4.Your comment is noted for the record. 5.Your comment is noted for the record. 6.Your comment is noted for the record. 7.As part of the transportation trip generation analysis, average pass-by rates for the proposed retail uses were calculated based on the ITE Trip Generation Handbook 2nd Edition (June 2004). In addition, reductions from the gross trip generation were taken into account for internal captured trips within the site. Internal trips are classified as trips made by people making multiple stops within a development without generating new vehicle trips on the adjacent street system. Internal trip generation reductions were also based upon methods established in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook 2nd Edition. The ITE trip generation manual was updated subsequent to issuance of the Quendall Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum. However, the trip generation rates that were used in the DEIS and EIS Addendum for apartments, offices, retail and restaurants were not changed in the updated ITE manual. Therefore, the trip generation rates used in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid. 8.Additional traffic analysis has been included in this FEIS to evaluate potential impacts to Park Avenue N (Kennydale neighborhood). That analysis concluded that the project would not be expected to generate substantial cut-through traffic through the Kennydale neighborhood or significant impacts on operation of the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange. See FEIS Chapter 2 - Key Topics Areas (Transportation – page 2-10) for additional analysis of the transportation conditions on Park Avenue N. 9.The transportation analyses in the DEIS and EIS Addendum assumed two transportation scenarios: 1) future development of the Quendall Terminals site with the WSDOT NE 44th Street/I-405 Improvements, and 2) future development without the NE 44th Street/I- 405 Improvements. Mitigation measures were identified for both scenarios. See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including transportation-related mitigation measures. (Note: based on supplemental transportation review conducted for this FEIS, it was determined the transportation analyses prepared and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed project build-out Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-529 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments in 2017; see FEIS Chapter 2 – Key Topic Areas (Transportation) and FEIS Appendix C for details). 10.Please see the response to Comment 8 in this letter regarding impacts to Park Avenue N. 11.Your comment is noted for the record. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-530 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments RESPONSE TO DEIS PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT 8 Larry Reymann 1.Your comment is noted for the record. 2.Under the Preferred Alternative, approximately 3.7 acres of site area would be maintained as “Natural Public Open Space Area”, including an approximately 100-foot setback from the Lake Washington shoreline. Approximately 6.9 acres of “Other Related Areas” would also be provided on the site, including landscaped courtyards and other landscaped areas. The design of the shoreline area would be determined by EPA’s Record of Decision (ROD) or any Natural Resource Damages (NRD) settlement, as part of the separate cleanup/remediation process for the site. Final, detailed plans for the shoreline area, including the re-establishment of wetlands and their buffers onsite will be developed in coordination with EPA as part of the remediation process, prior to proposed redevelopment. 3.Please see the response to Comment 2 in this letter. 4.Your comment is noted for the record. Local and regional transit agencies have no plans (within the transportation DEIS and EIS Addendum study horizon year of 2015 and within the FEIS study horizon year of 2017) to provide transit service along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor in the site vicinity. As noted in DEIS Section 3.9, and Appendix H, future public transportation in the vicinity could include Bus Rapid Transit on I-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT with a flyer stop at the I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange. There are many neighborhoods and developments within Renton and throughout the Puget Sound region that are not directly served by transit. As a conservative approach, trip rates generated by residential uses in the proposed Quendall Terminals Project were increased by 10 percent to account for no existing public transit services or commercial businesses in the immediate site vicinity in the EIS transportation analysis. This 10 percent increase has been included in the analysis in the DEIS, EIS Addendum and this FEIS to account for the lack of public transit options in the site area. As a project mitigation measure, the applicant would work with local and regional transit providers to identify site amenities to support future local transit service in the immediate site vicinity. See FEIS Chapter 1 pages 1-8 through 1-20 for the final list of mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative, including transportation- related mitigation measures. 5.As part of the Preferred Alternative, approximately 10.6 acres of “Natural Open Space Areas” and “Other Related Areas” would be provided on the site. Of this area, approximately 3.7 acres would be “Natural Public Open Space Area” including a trail through the minimum 100-foot shoreline setback area along Lake Washington (if authorized by EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement). If EPA’s ROD or any NRD settlement prohibits the trail, the trail would be relocated to the west side of the westernmost buildings, and could be combined with the fire access road. Approximately 6.9 acres of “Other Related Areas” would be provided, including landscaping and sidewalks located throughout the site that would provide a connection between the trail and Lake Washington Boulevard and other areas beyond the site (including the May Creek Parkway and a future connection to Cougar Mountain). The “Other Related Areas” may or may not meet the City’s standards, regulations, and procedures for open space. Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 3-531 Chapter 3 – DEIS Comments Approximately 1.8 acres of indoor and/or outdoor area would be provided onsite for active recreation (i.e., Frisbee, swimming pools, tot lots, bocce ball courts, exercise rooms, active recreation in courtyards, etc.), as approved by the City’s responsible public official (see Parks and Recreation mitigation measure G2 and G8 in FEIS Chapter 1). 6.Your comment is noted for the record. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) authorized EPA to identify parties responsible for contamination of sites and compel the parties to clean up the sites. Where responsible parties cannot be found, EPA is authorized to clean up sites itself, using a special trust fund. In the case of the Quendall Terminals site, the property owners, Altino Properties and J.H. Baxter and Company, are the parties responsible for cleanup of the site and federal or state funding is not being used to clean up the contamination on the site. 7.Your comment is noted for the record. Chapter 4 REFERENCES Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 4-1 Chapter 4 CHAPTER 4 REFERENCES Anchor QEA, LLC. Wetland Assessment, Standard Lake Study, Habitat Data Report, and Conceptual Restoration Plan, Quendall Terminals. November 2009. Aspect Consulting. Draft Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study, Quendall Terminals. March 2010. City of Renton. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. November 2004. City of Renton. Planning Division Website http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=2682. Accessed December 2012. City of Renton. Shoreline Master Program. 2011. City of Renton. Renton Municipal Code. http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/renton/. Accessed December 2012. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. 1987 US Army Corp of Engineers (Corps). Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region. 2008. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. 1997. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Priority Habitats and Species Maps in the Vicinity of T24, R05E, Section 29. 2009 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Priority Habitats and Species Maps in the Vicinity of T24, R05E, Section 29. 2012. APPENDIX A FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST DISTRIBUTION LIST Quendall Terminals – Final EIS Federal Agencies U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Office, Attn: SEPA Reviewer Environmental Protection Agency, Attn: Region X Environmental Impact Evaluation Branch National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife, Attn: Roger Tabor Tribes Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Fisheries Department, Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program, Attn: Laura Murphy Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program, Attn: Erin Slaten Duwamish Tribal Office State Agencies Department of Ecology, Environmental Review Section Department of Ecology, Attn: Misty Blair Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Attn: Larry Fisher Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Northwest Region, Attn: Ramin Pazooki Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Department of Natural Resources, Attn: Boyd Powers Regional Agencies Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, Attn: SEPA Coordinator Puget Sound Regional Council, Attn: Rick Olson, Director, Government Relations and Comm. Local Agencies King County Wastewater Treatment Division, Shirley Marroquin, Environmental Planning Supervisor King County Department of Transportation, Attn: Harold S. Taniguchi, Director King County Development and Environmental Services, Attn: SEPA Section Metro Transit, Attn: Gary Kriedt, Senior Environmental Planner City of Newcastle, Attn: Tim McHarg, Director of Community Development City of Kent, Attn: Acting Community Development Director City of Tukwila, Attn: Jack Pace, Responsible Official City of Bellevue, Planning and Community Development, Attn: Janna Steedman City of Mercer Island, Attn: Tim Stewart, Development Services Director Puget Sound Energy, Attn: Doug Corbin, Municipal Liaison ManagerPuget Sound Energy, Attn: Wendy Weiker, Community Services Manager Seattle Public Utilities, Attn: Timorthy Croll, SEPA Coordinator Newspapers Seattle Times – notice of application only Puget Sound Business Journal – notice of application only Renton Reporter – publication paper Quendall Terminals LUA09-151 PARTIES OF RECORD Applicant IMPORT IMPORT Party of Record Ronald & Vanessa Brazg 1019 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 (425) 254-2796 Party of Record Keith Preszler 3818 Lake Washington Blvd Renton, WA 98056 (425) 226-7987 kpreszler@hotmail.com Party of Record CHARLIE CONNER CHG SF LLC dba CONNER HOMES AT PIPER'S BLUFF LLC 846 108th Ave NE, #200 Bellevue, WA 98004 Party of Record Sherry and Robert Cline 4267 Williams Ave N Renton, WA 98056 (425) 226-6888 Party of Record Rajendra Agrawaal 1113 N 29th St Renton, WA 98056 agrawaalr@yahoo.com Party of Record Robert & Sonya Tobeck 1003 N 41st Pl Renton, WA 98056 Party of Record Tim Stewart 9611 SE 36th St Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 275-7600 Party of Record Jessica Winter 7600 Samd Point Way Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 623-1745 Party of Record Anne Woodley 7920 E Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 a.woodley@comcast.net Party of Record Leslye Bergan 3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, Suite #2 Renton, WA 98056 (206) 940-7461 lesbergan@comcast.net Party of Record Jim Hanken 1111 Third Ave, Sutie 1800 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 682-3840 Party of Record Sally Scott 1405 N 28th St Renton, WA 98056 (425) 255-1005 Party of Record Len & Pat Reid 1217 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 (425) 572-0474 lpreid@comcast.net Party of Record Bud Worley 4100 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 (425) 235-0825 bud@nwccc.net Party of Record Paul & Susan Siegmund 1006 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 (425) 502-5195 paulrsiegmund@gmail.com Party of Record Winnie & Yuri Sihon 1211 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 wsihon@comcast.net Party of Record William Popp Associates 14400 Bel Red Rd, #206 Bellevue, WA 98007 Party of Record Dima . 1815 NE 27th Ct Renton, WA 98056 dyma20@yahoo.com Party of Record Kelly Smith 6811 Ripley Ln N Renton, WA 98056 Party of Record Amy & Kevin Dedrickson 1012 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 (425) 970-3799 aimerdoll@yahoo.com Party of Record Ricardo & Maria Antezana 1025 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 ricardoadlc@msn.com Party of Record Carol O'Connell 1241 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 (425) 254-2796 Party of Record Gwendolyn High 155 Yakima Ave NE Renton, WA 98059 (206) 279-0349 Page 1 of 5 Quendall Terminals LUA09-151 PARTIES OF RECORD Party of Record Tim Riley (206) 779-2021 auto@washsys.com Party of Record Spencer Albert 2442 NW Market St, Suite #722 Seattle, WA 98107 (206) 915-7200 Party of Record Steve Van Til 505 5th Ave S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 342-2119 Party of Record Ronald & Sachi Nicol 1030 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 (425) 891-6169 rfnucik@comcast.net Party of Record Bruce MacCaul 1246 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 bgmc2@cox.net Party of Record KEVIN POOLE 627 High Ave S Renton, WA 98057-3918 (425) 277-4797 Party of Record LAWRENCE DIXON DIXON & ASSOCIATES INC PO BOX 2350 Renton, WA 98056-0350 Party of Record William Skilling 3814 E Lee St Seattle, WA 98112 (206) 622-2626 bskilling@msn.com Party of Record KATHLEEN DOW 1210 N 42ND PL Renton, WA 98056 (425) 417-3613 Party of Record Diane Espey Jackson 2419 Talbot Crest Dr S Renton, WA 98055 dianej2419@msn.com Party of Record Victor Chiu 1128 N 41st Pl Renton, WA 98056 Party of Record Mike Batin 3410 Park Ave N Renton, WA 98056 (425) 235-8818 mbattin@yahoo.com Party of Record Cyrus McNeely 3810 Park Ave N Renton, WA 98056 cmikeathom@msn.com Party of Record Century Pacific, L.P. 1201 Third Ave, Suite #1600 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 757-8893 Party of Record Richard & Kathleen Bergquist 7244 E Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 dickb@seanet.com Party of Record Lawrence Hard 4316 NE 33rd St Seattle, WA 98105 (206) 669-8686 Party of Record INEZ PETERSEN, J.D. STARFISH LAW PLLC 3306 Lake Washington Blvd N, 1 Renton, WA 98056-1909 Party of Record DARIUS & VICKI RICHARDS 3605 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056-1509 (425) 430-4469 Party of Record Fred Warnock 1246 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 Party of Record Charles & Rebecca Taylor 1252 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 (425) 430-4473 Party of Record TONY BOYDSTON 3920 NE 11th Pl Renton, WA 98056-3537 (206) 999-9763 bonethedawgs@yahoo.com Party of Record Elisabeth Durr 1206 N 27th Pl Renton, WA 98056 elisabethdurr@gmail.com Party of Record Mike Batin 3410 Park Ave N Renton, WA 98056 (425) 235-8818 mbattin@yahoo.com Party of Record Ryan Durkin 1221 Second Ave, 500 Galland Building Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 623-1745 Page 2 of 5 Quendall Terminals LUA09-151 PARTIES OF RECORD Party of Record Patty Witt 1204 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 (425) 890-1880 pwitt55@aol.com Party of Record Glen St. Amant Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA Party of Record Connie Taylor 2425 NE 25th St Renton, WA 98056 (425) 228-5436 conniemtaylor@comcast.net Party of Record John Hansen 4005 Park Ave N Renton, WA 98056 (425) 430-1498 johsamm@comcast.net Party of Record SALLY ROCHELLE 3626 Lk Wa Blvd N Renton, WA 98056-1508 (206) 915-1841 rochsjr@comcast.net Party of Record Ramin Pazooki PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133 Party of Record Sheng Wu 1222 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 (832) 971-9396 swu@bechtel.com Party of Record Michael Mullinaux 1415 N 24th St Renton, WA 98056 mullinaux@comcast.net Party of Record Jenny Manning 1205 N 10th Pl Renton, WA 98057 (425) 283-2880 jenny.manning@patch.com Party of Record Tom Baker 1202 N 35th St Renton, WA 98056 (425) 221-0631 tommbaker@hotmail.com Party of Record Rich Wagner 2411 Garden Ct Renton, WA 98056 Party of Record Mimi MacCaul 1246 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 (425) 430-5409 mimiafsc@mac.com Party of Record Yvonne & Gary C. Pipkin 1120 N 38th St Renton, WA 98056 (425) 271-2009 Party of Record Bruce MacCaul 1246 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 bgmc2@cox.net Party of Record John Murphy 4314 148th St SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 (425) 953-4719 Party of Record Kevin Iden 5121 Ripley Ln Renton, WA 98056 (425) 444-4336 idenkr@comcast.net Party of Record THEO & KIM BROWNE 1409 N 37th St Renton, WA 98056 (425) 226-7791 Party of Record Susan Stow 1309 N 36th St Renton, WA 98056 (425) 793-5062 stows@comcast.net Party of Record Barbara Nightingale 3190 160th Ave, SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Party of Record Marcos Santos 1209 N 31st St Renton, WA 98056 (425) 221-0752 Party of Record Roy & Joann Francis 1000 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 (425) 227-7108 royfrancis@msn.com Party of Record Richard Ferry 7414 E Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 232-1872 Party of Record SUSAN MILLER (425) 228-1868 susanagrenmiller@hotmail.com Party of Record Ross & Ava Ohashi 1018 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 (425) 890-3045 taryntani@gmail.com Page 3 of 5 Quendall Terminals LUA09-151 PARTIES OF RECORD Party of Record ANNE SIMPSON 3001 Mountain View Ave N Renton, WA 98056-2516 (425) 572-6344 annsimpson@comcast.net Party of Record Christine Chen 1128 N 41st Pl Renton, WA 98056 (206) 229-5880 christineschen@yahoo.com Party of Record Gretchen Kaehler PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504 (360) 586-3088 Party of Record Sue & Mac jahnke 1717 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 (425) 271-6489 forsue2go@comcast.net Party of Record Larry Reymann 1313 N 38th St Renton, WA 98056 (425) 228-8511 fulmen8@hotmail.com Party of Record Pavy Thao 4100 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 (425) 591-7077 pavyt@hotmail.com Party of Record Trudy Neumann 922 N 28th Pl Renton, WA 98056 (425) 227-4205 Party of Record Brad Nicholson 2302 NE 28th St Renton, WA 98056 Party of Record Jon & Marilyn Danielson 1308 34th St Renton, WA 98056 (425) 228-7933 jonjdan@aol.com Party of Record Roger Pearce 1111 3rd Ave, #3400 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 447-4676 pearr@foster.com Party of Record Larry & Linda Boregson 1013 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 borg41943@comcast.net Party of Record JH Baxter & Co. 800 S Third St Renton, WA 98057 (425) 226-3900 Party of Record LOUIS TIBBS 807 N 33rd St Renton, WA 98056-1901 (425) 457-6508 louis077@mindless.com Party of Record AARON BELENKY 1800 NE 40th St, H4 Renton, WA 98056 (206) 235-2651 Party of Record Lynda Priddy 1200 6th Ave, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101 priddy.lynda@epa.com Party of Record Suzanne & Donald Orehek 4103 Wells Ave N Renton, WA 98056 Party of Record Len & Pat Reid 1217 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 (425) 572-0474 lpreid@comcast.net Party of Record Charles Witmann 907 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 Party of Record Bob & Mary Becker 1007 N 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 (425) 970-3385 mbfamily6@gmail.com Party of Record kim Douthitt 5901 143 Pl SE Bellevue, WA 98006 Party of Record Janet L. & Gary R. Sanford 1102 S 42nd Pl Renton, WA 98056 (425) 276-5848 garys@laziergoup.com Party of Record FAYE JANDERS 2717 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 (425) 255-4227 fayeandlorna@comcast.net Party of Record Mark Hancock PO Box 88811 Seattle, WA 98138 Party of Record Chuck & Sylvia Holden 3609 Meadow Ave N Renton, WA 98056 (425) 226-9956 sbholden@nwlink.com Page 4 of 5 Quendall Terminals LUA09-151 PARTIES OF RECORD Party of Record Mike & Sharon Glenn 8825 114th Ave SE Newcastle, WA 98056 (425) 255-8351 altglennmal@comcast.net Party of Record AMY LIETZ ROBERTS ALR DESIGN INC 1006 NE 34th Renton, WA 98056-1938 Party of Record Jim Hanken 15543 62nd Ave Kenmore, WA 98028 Party of Record Laura & James Counsell 1122 N 41st Pl Renton, WA 98056 (425) 203-1281 yyluan@yahoo.com Party of Record MICHAEL CHRIST IMMERSION SERVICES LLC 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N, SUITE 50 Renton, WA 98056 Party of Record Ronald Corbell 4113 Williams Ave Renton, WA 98056 (425) 572-6844 rrcorbell@comcast.net Party of Record Dan Mitzel 111 Cleveland Ave Mt. Vernon, WA 98040 (360) 404-2050 Party of Record Mike Cero 8300 Avalon Dr Mercer Island, WA 98056 (206) 419-0657 mscero@comcast.net Party of Record Nancy Denney 3818 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 (425) 226-7987 nancydenney@comcast.net Party of Record Farrel & Jonell Wilson 4063 Williams Ave N Renton, WA 98056 (425) 226-1748 jobitney@comcast.net Party of Record John & Diane Haines 1014 N 27th Pl Renton, WA 98056 headac1@comcast.net Party of Record Laurie Baker 3107 Mountain View Ave N , (206) 772-6284 laurieb@mvseac.com Party of Record Linda Baker 1202 N 35th St Renton, WA 98056 (425) 271-1251 lindabak@hotmail.com Party of Record DOUG ORWILER FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC dba SEATTLE SEAHAWKS 12 Seahawks Way Renton, WA 98056-1572 Page 5 of 5 APPENDIX B TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS 2012 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts Peak Hour Summary 7:15 AM to 8:15 AM Tuesday, December 11, 2012 162 612 150 12 56 0 58 0 2 0 14 0 556 2 152 558 Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM N 40th St Approach HV%PHF Volume La k e W a s h i n g t o n Bl v d 0 SB 0.70 2.5% Intersection 0.80 2.4% 162 778 NB 0.83 2.7% 558 EB 0.00 0.0% 0 00 Lake Washington Blvd & N 40th St La k e W a s h i n g t o n Bl v d 0 58WB0.76 0.0% 0Peds Pe d s 0 Mark Skaggs (206) 251-0300 0Peds Pe d s 0 Peak Hour Summary 7:15 AM to 8:15 AM Tuesday, December 11, 2012 101 48 4592 43 0 40 35 103 0 25 1 0 172 167 320 0 4 1461 34 66 Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM N 30th St N 30th St Approach HV%PHF Volume Pa r k A v e N 0 SB 0.68 2.0% Intersection 0.84 2.3% 101 442 NB 0.66 3.0% 66 EB 0.77 1.2% 0 00 Park Ave N & N 30th St Pa r k A v e N 172 103WB0.83 3.9% 2Peds Pe d s 1 Mark Skaggs (206) 251-0300 1Peds Pe d s 0 Peak Hour Summary 7:15 AM to 8:15 AM Tuesday, December 11, 2012 144 0 60 3 81 0 0 174 114 166 0 52 0 0 376 251 332 0 125 000 180 0 Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM N 30th St N 30th St Approach HV%PHF Volume 40 5 S B R a m p s 0 SB 0.86 7.6% Intersection 0.85 4.1% 144 686 NB 0.00 0.0% 0 EB 0.76 2.1% 0 00 405 SB Ramps & N 30th St 40 5 S B R a m p s 376 166WB0.90 5.4% 9Peds Pe d s 0 Mark Skaggs (206) 251-0300 6Peds Pe d s 0 Peak Hour Summary 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM Tuesday, December 11, 2012 0 815 000 618 0 163 136 754 0 0 185 0 325 140 157 0 0 27 12 17 056 Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM N 30th St N 30th St Approach HV%PHF Volume 40 5 N B R a m p s 0 SB 0.00 0.0% Intersection 0.90 3.5% 0 1,135 NB 0.88 19.6% 56 EB 0.80 4.6% 0 00 405 NB Ramps & N 30th St 40 5 N B R a m p s 325 754WB0.92 1.9% 7Peds Pe d s 0 Mark Skaggs (206) 251-0300 6Peds Pe d s 9 2015 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Forecasts Quendall Terminals 2015 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts Without RTID I-405 Improvements Intersection:NE 30th/I-405 SB Ramps Intersection Code:10 Count Source:ATDS - 12/11/2012 Count Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:MJR 2012 to 2015 Factor:0.4286 Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR Time Period:AM Peak Date of Completion:12/20/2012 Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit 2008 Calibration Year 725 725 140 420 560 518 518 242 171 413 2015 Baseline Forecast Year 868 868 157 572 729 547 547 264 171 435 Fratar Approximation Factor 1.17 1.26 1.05 1.05 North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total 2012 Existing Conditions 81 3 60 144 1 145 52 114 0 166 332 498 1 0 0 1 180 181 1 251 125 377 175 552 2015 Baseline Year 115 5 50 170 0 170 75 130 0 205 405 610 0 0 0 0 185 185 0 290 105 395 180 575 Barbee Mills Hawks Landing Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 115 5 50 170 0 170 75 130 0 205 405 610 0 0 0 0 185 185 0 290 105 395 180 575 Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Trip Distribution 0%0%0%20%20%0%20%0%20%20%20%20%20%40% Project Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 90 90 0 90 0 85 85 85 85 90 175 2015 with Full Buildout 115 5 50 170 0 170 75 220 0 295 405 700 0 0 0 0 270 270 0 290 190 480 270 750 Intersection:NE 30th/I-405 NB Ramps Intersection Code:11 Count Source:ATDS - 12/11/2012 Count Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:MJR 2012 to 2015 Factor:0.4286 Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR Time Period:AM Peak Date of Completion:12/20/2012 Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit 2008 Calibration Year 496 496 171 242 413 318 318 294 396 690 2015 Baseline Forecast Year 872 872 171 264 435 618 618 334 544 878 Fratar Approximation Factor 1.23 1.05 1.23 1.23 North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total 2010 Existing Conditions 1 0 0 1 815 816 0 136 618 754 158 912 27 12 17 56 1 57 185 140 1 326 163 489 2015 Baseline Year 0 0 0 0 920 920 0 145 640 785 150 935 40 15 15 70 0 70 265 135 0 400 185 585 Barbee Mills Hawks Landing Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 0 0 0 0 920 920 0 145 640 785 150 935 40 15 15 70 0 70 265 135 0 400 185 585 Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Trip Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%20%20%0%20%0%20%20% Project Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 90 0 90 0 90 90 2015 with Full Buildout 0 0 0 0 920 920 0 145 640 785 150 935 130 15 15 160 0 160 265 135 0 400 275 675 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Date Printed: 12/21/2012 Page 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary Sheets ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst MJR Agency/Co.TENW Date Performed 12/21/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection NE 30th/405 SB Ramps Jurisdiction Renton Analysis Year 2012 Existing Project ID Quendall Terminals FEIS East/West Street: NE 30th North/South Street: SB Ramps Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 0 251 125 52 114 0 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 81 3 60 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration T R LT LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 251 125 166 144 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 2 1 0 1 Geometry Group 5 3a 1 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.4 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 5.04 5.04 5.04 5.04 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.22 0.11 0.15 0.13 hd, final value 5.04 5.04 5.04 5.04 x, final value 0.35 0.15 0.22 0.20 Move-up time, m 2.3 2.0 2.0 Service Time 2.7 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.7 2.0 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 501 375 416 394 Delay 10.45 7.81 9.26 9.19 LOS B A A A Approach: Delay 9.57 9.26 9.19 LOS A A A Intersection Delay 9.42 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f 12/21/2012 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst MJR Agency/Co.TENW Date Performed 12/21/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection NE 30th/405 SB Ramps Jurisdiction Renton Analysis Year 2015 Base without 405 Impr Project ID Quendall Terminals FEIS East/West Street: NE 30th North/South Street: SB Ramps Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 0 290 105 75 130 0 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 115 5 50 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration T R LT LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 290 105 205 170 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 2 1 0 1 Geometry Group 5 3a 1 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 5.19 5.19 5.19 5.19 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.26 0.09 0.18 0.15 hd, final value 5.19 5.19 5.19 5.19 x, final value 0.42 0.13 0.29 0.25 Move-up time, m 2.3 2.0 2.0 Service Time 2.9 2.2 2.9 2.2 2.9 2.2 2.9 2.2 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 540 355 455 420 Delay 11.58 7.86 10.02 9.95 LOS B A B A Approach: Delay 10.59 10.02 9.95 LOS B B A Intersection Delay 10.30 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f 12/21/2012 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst MJR Agency/Co.TENW Date Performed 12/21/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection NE 30th/405 SB Ramps Jurisdiction Renton Analysis Year 2015 w/ Proj without 405 Impr Project ID Quendall Terminals FEIS East/West Street: NE 30th North/South Street: SB Ramps Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 0 290 190 75 220 0 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 115 5 50 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration T R LT LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 290 190 295 170 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 2 1 0 1 Geometry Group 5 3a 1 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 5.32 5.32 5.32 5.32 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.26 0.17 0.26 0.15 hd, final value 5.32 5.32 5.32 5.32 x, final value 0.43 0.24 0.42 0.26 Move-up time, m 2.3 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.0 2.3 3.0 2.3 3.0 2.3 3.0 2.3 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 540 440 545 420 Delay 11.96 8.80 11.71 10.55 LOS B A B B Approach: Delay 10.71 11.71 10.55 LOS B B B Intersection Delay 10.99 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f 12/21/2012 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst MJR Agency/Co.TENW Date Performed 12/21/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Intersection NE 30th/405 NB Ramps Jurisdiction Renton Analysis Year 2012 Existing Project ID Quendall Terminals FEIS East/West Street: NE 30th North/South Street: NB Ramps Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 185 140 0 0 136 618 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 27 12 17 0 0 0 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LT T R LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 325 136 618 56 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 1 2 1 0 Geometry Group 3a 5 1 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 4.95 4.95 4.95 4.95 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.29 0.12 0.55 0.05 hd, final value 4.95 4.95 4.95 4.95 x, final value 0.45 0.19 0.73 0.09 Move-up time, m 2.0 2.3 2.0 Service Time 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 575 386 844 306 Delay 11.89 8.78 17.45 9.52 LOS B A C A Approach: Delay 11.89 15.89 9.52 LOS B C A Intersection Delay 14.43 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f 12/21/2012 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst MJR Agency/Co.TENW Date Performed 12/21/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Intersection NE 30th/405 NB Ramps Jurisdiction Renton Analysis Year 2015 Baseline with 405 Impr Project ID Quendall Terminals FEIS East/West Street: NE 30th North/South Street: NB Ramps Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 265 135 0 0 145 640 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 40 15 15 0 0 0 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LT T R LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 400 145 640 70 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 1 2 1 0 Geometry Group 3a 5 1 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 5.08 5.08 5.08 5.08 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.36 0.13 0.57 0.06 hd, final value 5.08 5.08 5.08 5.08 x, final value 0.56 0.20 0.78 0.12 Move-up time, m 2.0 2.3 2.0 Service Time 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 650 395 817 320 Delay 14.44 9.10 20.71 10.09 LOS B A C B Approach: Delay 14.44 18.56 10.09 LOS B C B Intersection Delay 16.77 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f 12/21/2012 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst MJR Agency/Co.TENW Date Performed 12/21/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Intersection NE 30th/405 NB Ramps Jurisdiction Renton Analysis Year 2015 w/ Project with 405 Impr Project ID Quendall Terminals FEIS East/West Street: NE 30th North/South Street: NB Ramps Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 265 135 0 0 145 640 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 130 15 15 0 0 0 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LT T R LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate 400 145 640 160 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 1 2 1 0 Geometry Group 3a 5 1 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.8 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.1 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 5.54 5.54 5.54 5.54 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.36 0.13 0.57 0.14 hd, final value 5.54 5.54 5.54 5.54 x, final value 0.62 0.22 0.86 0.29 Move-up time, m 2.0 2.3 2.0 Service Time 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 637 395 742 410 Delay 17.02 9.81 29.27 12.17 LOS C A D B Approach: Delay 17.02 25.67 12.17 LOS C D B Intersection Delay 21.49 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f 12/21/2012 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst MJR Agency/Co.TENW Date Performed 1/3/2013 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection LWB and N 40th Jurisdiction Renton Analysis Year 2012 Existing Project Description Quendall Terminals FEIS East/West Street: N 40th St North/South Street: LWB Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 556 2 12 150 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 694 2 14 187 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 2 0 56 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 0 69 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (vph) 14 71 C (m) (vph) 909 440 v/c 0.02 0.16 95% queue length 0.05 0.57 Control Delay 9.0 14.7 LOS A B Approach Delay ----14.7 Approach LOS ----B Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f Version 4.1f 1/3/2013 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst MJR Agency/Co.TENW Date Performed 1/3/2013 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Intersection N 30th/Park Ave Jurisdiction Renton Analysis Year 2012 Existing Project ID Quendall Terminals FEIS East/West Street: N 30th Street North/South Street: Park Avenue N Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 1 167 4 25 35 43 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 1 4 61 92 5 4 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.77 0.83 0.66 0.68 Flow Rate 222 123 99 147 % Heavy Vehicles 1 4 3 2 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.9 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 4.68 4.68 4.68 4.68 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.20 0.11 0.09 0.13 hd, final value 4.68 4.68 4.68 4.68 x, final value 0.29 0.16 0.12 0.21 Move-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 472 373 349 397 Delay 9.58 8.56 8.07 9.39 LOS A A A A Approach: Delay 9.58 8.56 8.07 9.39 LOS A A A A Intersection Delay 9.07 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f 1/3/2013 APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSPORTATION REVIEW FOR 2017 BUILD-OUT YEAR TENW Transportation Engineering NorthWest Transportation Planning | Design | Traffic Impact & Operations PO Box 65254, Seattle, WA 98155 | Office (206) 361-7333 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 29, 2015 TO: Gretchen Brunner, AIA EA Engineering FROM: Michael J. Read, PE, Principal TENW SUBJECT: Quendall Terminals FEIS – Supplemental Transportation Review This memorandum addresses additional transportation analyses, data, and clarifications for the Quendall Terminals FEIS. These transportation-related items include: Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton, October 2014, by KPG on behalf of the City of Renton that addressed cumulative impacts of the Quendall Terminals development and five other known pipeline projects, with emphasis on traffic operations along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor from the NE 44th Street Interchange to N Park Drive. Historical review of traffic counts within the Quendall Terminals FEIS study area, including a comparative analysis of existing traffic counts completed for the Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton completed in 2014, which addresses the new buildout year of 2017 for Quendall Terminals. Summary of revised project mitigation as identified in the Quendall Terminals FEIS amended to address findings and conclusions of the Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton completed in 2014. Incorporation of updated references for project trip generation. North Renton Traffic Study In 2014, the City of Renton retained KPG to conduct a detailed review of near-term and long-term transportation needs in North Renton, with a specific focus along the Lake Washington Boulevard Corridor. Between N Park Drive and NE 44th Street, this corridor currently experiences moderate peak hour traffic volumes and is anticipating increased traffic demands generated by new development including: Southport Hotel Southport Office Buildings Quendall Terminals HawkÊs Landing Renton Hotel Kennydale Mixed-Use The Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton collected new peak hour traffic volumes in 2014, prepared both near-term and 20-year traffic projections in 2035 using the latest City of Quendall Terminals FEIS Supplemental Transportation Review TENW page 2 June 29, 2015 Renton Travel Demand Model, and evaluated a number of scenarios considering various development timing of know pipeline projects and transportation infrastructure needs along the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor with and without I-405 improvements. Major conclusions of the Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton study, dated October 31, 2014, included: With the exception of the vicinity interchanges near NE 44th Street interchange and the entrance to Gene Coulon Park south, the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor can remain as a 2-lane roadway. Project specific mitigation identified for each pipeline project would mitigate each projectÊs impact, except related to site access for the office development phase at Southport. With regard to the Quendall Terminals project, the study proposed relocation of a future signal from Seahawks Way southward to N 43rd Street. With planned improvements to I-405 completed, traffic reductions of between 15 and 25 percent along Lake Washington Boulevard could be expected as cut-through traffic is reduced along this parallel roadway to I-405. In summary, the Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton concluded that the project specific mitigation without I-405 Improvements for Quendall Terminals would be adequate under the near- term and that the City should consider relocation of the future signalized access into Quendall Terminals from Seahawks Way (Ripley Lane) to N 43rd Street. To accommodate this potential relocation, modification of the project-specific mitigation for the Quendall Terminals FEIS has been completed in order for the City, WSDOT, the applicant, and other adjacent properties to further consider this potential relocation in future design of the interchange system. Purely from a long-range transportation planning perspective, ideal separation between signalized intersections is considered to be good engineering practice. Relocation of a future signal to serve the Quendall Terminals development to N 43rd Street does create additional challenges that were not considered in the Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton. This includes in inadequate spacing between a signalized intersection at N 43rd Street and Lake Washington Boulevard and the existing railroad crossing (estimated at approximately 50 feet between the signalized stop bar and the railroad crossing), would provide and inadequate approach configuration for the minor street approach of N 43rd Street as a signalized intersection, and would only effectively serve the Quendall Terminals project and adjacent Barbee Mills residential development. Relocation of the signal southward to N 43rd Street would in turn likely create turning restrictions at the Seahawks Way (Ripley Lane) intersection to allow for safe and efficient movements, which could lead to unintended cut-through traffic through Quendall Terminals and HawksÊ Landing. While not ideal intersection spacing for signals, the currently proposed location identified in the Quendall Terminals EIS documentation does serve multiple existing and proposed residential, commercial, and sport training facilities, can be coordinated with signalized intersections as part of the new NE 44th Street/I-405 Interchange system, and has been demonstrated to fully mitigate project traffic impacts of the Quendall Terminals and other vicinity development projects with or without I-405 widening. Finally recommendation as to the ultimate signal location for the Quendall Terminals project has been deferred to final design of the NE 44th Street/I-405 Interchange system by WSDOT and the City of Renton. Quendall Terminals FEIS Supplemental Transportation Review TENW page 3 June 29, 2015 Historical Traffic Count Comparison Since the completion of the 2009 Quendall Terminals DEIS, subsequent traffic counts have been collected at key study intersections along the critical study corridor of Lake Washington Boulevard. Existing conditions data used as the basis for the 2009 Quendall Terminals DEIS included a combination of collection of traffic counts and referencing other source data from other recent traffic studies completed prior to 2009. For the purposes of the DEIS, these existing counts were then factored to forecast a 7-year growth projection using the CityÊs subarea model and application of additional growth based on known pipeline development. This forecasting method was conservative in that it double-counted growth projects at certain locations in the pipeline, while also considering other local and regional growth. The transportation analyses prepared for the DEIS and EIS Addendum assumed a project buildout year of 2015. Given the amount of time that has passed, the assumed project buildout year has been revised to 2017. Recent traffic counts and traffic studies outlined below however, conclude that the underlying basis (i.e., existing traffic counts) and future growth projections used in the DEIS and EIS for Quendall Terminals remain conservative (i.e., higher), and that the new buildout year of 2017 is appropriate to assume and reference in the analysis. The recent completion of the Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton completed in 2014, collected existing 2014 traffic data and completed a similar forecasting process. In addition to a near-term growth projection, this study also reviewed a 20-year planning horizon consistent with recent regional growth projects to a forecast year of 2035. Prior to beginning any traffic study updates for the Quendall Terminals FEIS, a comparison was made of existing conditions data as well as the findings and conclusions of the Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton with those used and determined in the Quendall Terminals environmental review. Attachment A provides a comparative evaluation of study intersections that were similar between the Quendall Terminals FEIS and the KPG Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton. As shown, existing p.m. peak hour traffic counts used as the basis for the Quendall Terminals FEIS were slightly higher (total entering volumes of 7,337 vehicles per hour versus 7,258 vehicles per hour), overall, than the recent counts collected in 2014 for the Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton effort. Two important conclusions can be drawn from this comparative analysis: 1. The underlying basis used to apply growth factors in the Quendall Terminals DEIS transportation analysis in 2009 requires no update as it is consistent with the recent Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton. 2. There has been no effective growth in traffic volumes during the critical p.m. peak hour at study intersections between 2009 and 2014, and therefore, the near-term growth projections applied and underlying basis in the original Quendall Terminals DEIS are equivalent as if the traffic analysis was completed in 2014, and the new assumed buildout year of 2017 for Quendall Terminals is valid. Also contained within Attachment A is a summary of growth projections applied in the Quendall Terminals FEIS at these same study intersections. As shown, an overall growth rate of an approximate 32 percent was applied to existing counts to forecast near-term cumulative conditions. In conclusion, the existing traffic counts and forecasted background conditions are consistent with Quendall Terminals FEIS Supplemental Transportation Review TENW page 4 June 29, 2015 current conditions in the study area and reflective of growth projected in the near-term. As such, no updated detailed traffic studies are warranted and the new buildout year of 2017 for Quendall Terminals is valid. Project Trip Generation As an updated reference, subsequent to publication of the original Quendall Terminals DEIS, the Institute of Transportation Engineers has published an updated edition of Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012 (incorporated herein by reference). Although this reference document used in evaluating potential trip generation of proposed land uses within Quendall Terminals been updated, trip generation rates that were applied for proposed Apartments, Office, Retail, and Restaurant were not changed from the 8th Edition in the updated edition of the Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. It should also be noted, that an additional factor was applied to residential trip rates in the Quendall Terminals EIS, and therefore, estimates of project trips are considered conservative. Conclusions As described above, the transportation analyses prepared for the Quendall Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid for the currently assumed buildout in 2017 based on these determinations: The underlying basis used to apply growth factors in the Quendall Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum transportation analyses is consistent with that used in the 2014 Traffic Study for Developments in North Renton. There has been no effective growth in traffic volumes during the critical PM peak hour at the study intersections between 2009 and 2014; therefore, the existing traffic counts and near-term (e.g., through the currently assumed project buildout in 2017) growth projections used in the Quendall Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum are equivalent to those used in the 2014 North Renton traffic study. The ITE trip generation manual was updated subsequent to issuance of the Quendall Terminals DEIS and EIS Addendum. However, the trip generation rates that were used in the DEIS and EIS Addendum for apartments, offices, retail and restaurants were not changed in the updated ITE manual. Therefore, the trip generation rates used in the DEIS and EIS Addendum are still valid. Based on the above, it was determined that no additional analysis of the currently assumed Quendall Terminals Project buildout of 2017 is warranted in this FEIS. Therefore, the project mitigation measures identified in the EIS Addendum for the 2015 buildout year are valid for a 2017 buildout year. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (206) 361-7333 ext. 101. TENW ATTACHMENT A Quendall Terminals FEIS Historical Count Comparison Qu e n d a l l Te r m i n a l s FE I S ‐ Hi s t o r i c a l Co u n t s (T o t a l En t e r i n g Vo l u m e s ) 20 0 9 2 0 1 4 St u d y In t e r s e c t i o n Qu e n d a l l Te r m i n a l FE I S KP G LW B Co r r i d o r St u d y Av e r a g e An n u a l Ch a n g e 6 ‐Ye a r Gr o w t h wi t h Pi p e l i n e De v e l o p m e n t Av e r a g e An n u a l In c r e a s e Total Increase in Background Traffic 1I ‐40 5 NB Ra m p s / La k e Wa s h i n g t o n Bl v d 1 , 3 1 5 1 , 4 3 9 1 . 8 2 % 1 , 6 8 0 4 . 1 7 % 2 8 % 2I ‐40 5 SB Ra m p s / La k e Wa s h i n g t o n Bl v d 1 , 1 0 0 1 , 1 0 5 0 . 0 9 % 1 , 4 9 0 5 . 1 9 % 3 5 % 3 R i p l e y La n e / La k e Wa s h i n g t o n Bl v d 7 6 5 6 7 7 ‐2. 4 1 % 9 8 5 4 . 3 0 % 2 9 % 4 4 3 r d / La k e Wa s h i n g t o n Bl v d 6 2 6 5 8 4 ‐1. 3 8 % 9 8 5 7 . 8 5 % 5 7 % 7N 30 t h St / Bu r n e t t Av e 3 2 1 2 6 7 ‐3. 6 2 % 3 5 5 1 . 6 9 % 1 1 % 9 L a k e Wa s h i n g t o n Bl v d / Ga r d e n Av e N / Pa r k Av e N 3 , 2 1 0 3 , 1 8 6 ‐0. 1 5 % 4 , 1 6 5 4 . 4 4 % 3 0 % 7, 3 3 7 7 , 2 5 8 ‐0. 2 2 % 9 , 6 6 0 4 . 6 9 % 3 2 % Ex i s t i n g 6 ‐Ye a r Gr o w t h Pr o j e c t i o n s in FEIS