HomeMy WebLinkAboutExh.30_FEIS_Vol1_RentonSunsetArea-PA.pdfSUNSET AREA COMMUNITY PLANNED ACTION
FINAL NEPA/SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT • VOLUME 1 • APRIL 2011
Issued by:
City of Renton
NEPA Responsible Entity and
SEPA Lead Agency
Prepared in partnership with:
Renton Housing AuthorityRenton Housing Authority
FINAL
SUNSET AREA COMMUNITY PLANNED ACTION
NEPA/SEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
P REPARED FOR: City of Renton NEPA Responsible Entity and SEPA Lead Agency Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057
In partnership with Renton Housing Authority 2900 Northeast 10th Street Renton, Washington 98056
P RINCIPAL A UTHORS: CH2MHill Project Manager ICF International EIS Lead
April 2011
CH2MHill and ICF International. 2011. Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement. Final. April. (ICF 00593.10.) Bellevue and Seattle, WA. Prepared for City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA.
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement FS-1 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Fact Sheet
Project Title Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Proposal and Alternatives This Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addresses the Sunset Area Community Planned Action, which includes redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and associated neighborhood growth and revitalization (proposal). Sunset Terrace’s redevelopment provides the opportunity to evaluate the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood and determine what future land use redevelopment is desirable and what public service and infrastructure improvements should be made to create a more vibrant and attractive community for residents, businesses, and property owners. The objective of the proposal is to promote the redevelopment of public housing, implement infrastructure improvements throughout the Planned Action Study Area, and facilitate planning and environmental review for the Planned Action Study Area. The proposal is reviewed in terms of four alternatives.
Alternative 1, No Action. The No Action Alternative represents conditions where Sunset Terrace public housing redevelopment would not occur, and very limited public investment would be implemented in the neighborhood (e.g., some community services but no NE Sunset Boulevard or master drainage plan improvements), resulting in lesser redevelopment across the Planned Action Study Area. A Planned Action would not be designated. The No Action Alternative is required to be studied under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Alternative 2. This alternative represents a moderate level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area based on investment in mixed-income housing and mixed uses in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, targeted infrastructure and public services throughout the Planned Action Study Area, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance.
Alternative 3. This alternative represents the highest level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area based on investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, with a greater number dwellings developed in a mixed-income, mixed-use style; major public investment in study area infrastructure and services; and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance.
Preferred Alternative. This alternative represents neighborhood growth in the Planned Action Study Area similar to but slightly less than that of Alternative 3 based on investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, with a moderate number dwellings developed in a mixed-income, mixed-use style and oriented around a larger park space and loop road; major public investment in study area infrastructure and services; and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance.
City of Renton
Fact Sheet
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement FS-2 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Location The Sunset Terrace public housing community is generally bounded by Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE on the north, NE 10th Street on the east, NE Sunset Boulevard (State Route [SR] 900) on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west. The Sunset Terrace public housing community is part of the Sunset Area Community neighborhood. This broader neighborhood is the Planned Action Study Area considered in this EIS; it is generally bounded by NE 21st Street on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7th Street on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west.
Proponent The Renton Housing Authority (RHA) is the proponent of the proposal’s primary development action, redevelopment of the existing Sunset Terrace public housing community. In accordance with specific statutory authority and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) regulations at 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 58, the City of Renton (City) is authorized to assume responsibility for environmental review, decision-making, and action that would otherwise apply to HUD under NEPA, which includes NEPA lead agency responsibility. As the entity responsible for public service and infrastructure improvements for Sunset Terrace and the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood as well as regulating private neighborhood redevelopment, the City is the proponent of the broader Planned Action that would streamline local permitting and environmental review under SEPA (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 43.21C). The City implements SEPA and NEPA and is performing joint NEPA/SEPA environmental review in this EIS. The City, in partnership with RHA and other agencies, intends to use federal funds from several HUD programs to help finance proposed project activities.
Lead Agency for NEPA and SEPA Compliance City of Renton
Responsible Official City of Renton Environmental Review Committee
Contact Person Erika Conkling, AICP Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-6578, voice; (425)430-7300, fax econkling@rentonwa.gov
City of Renton
Fact Sheet
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement FS-3 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Required Approvals The following permits and/or approvals could be required for the proposal. Additional permits/approvals may be identified during the review process associated with implementing future development projects.
Planned Action Study Area To implement the proposal, the following must be approved by the City:
adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments regarding capital facility and transportation improvements required in association with projected growth,
adoption of NE Sunset Boulevard Conceptual Plan,
adoption of a drainage master plan, and
adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Prior to City action, the State of Washington Department of Commerce would coordinate state agency review of any Comprehensive Plan amendments or development regulations. After the City action, the likely permits to be acquired by individual development proposals in the Planned Action Study Area include, but are not limited to, land use permits, construction permits, building permits, and street use permits.
Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
Federal Agencies
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Record of Decision
Approval of Request for Release of Funds
Demolition/Disposition Application
Approval of Sunset Terrace project-related certifications
National Marine Fisheries Service
Endangered Species Act Consultation
State and Regional Agencies
Department of Ecology
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/Stormwater General Permit
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
Historic and cultural resources consultation
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
Asbestos surveys
Demolition permits
City of Renton
Fact Sheet
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement FS-4 April 2011
ICF 593.10
City of Renton
Site plan approval
Building, fire, electrical permits
EIS Authors and Principal Contributors This document has been prepared under the direction of the City Department of Community and Economic Development with consultation from RHA. Key authors and topics are listed below.
CH2MHill 1100 112th Ave NE, Suite 400 Bellevue, WA 98004-4511 (425) 453-5000 (Project management, earth, water resources, environmental health, socioeconomics, environmental justice, parks and recreation, transportation, and utilities)
ICF International 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 801-2800 (EIS lead, air quality, plants and animals, energy, noise, land use, housing, aesthetics, historic/cultural, public services)
Mithun 1201 Alaskan Way, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98101 (Sunset Terrace Alternative 2 and Preferred Alternative)
Weinman Consulting LLC 9350 S.E. 68th Street Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 295-0783 (NEPA compliance, Planned Action Ordinance)
Date of Draft EIS Issuance December 17, 2010
Date of Draft EIS Public Meetings January 4, 2011 RHA hosted meeting for Sunset Terrace residents January 5, 2011 Public hearing held before the City of Renton Planning Commission
City of Renton
Fact Sheet
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement FS-5 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Date Draft EIS Comments Were Due January 31, 2011
Date of Final EIS Issuance The NEPA/SEPA Final EIS will be available for a 30-day review period starting April 1, 2011. A NEPA Record of Decision (ROD) will be issued after the 30-day Final EIS availability period.
Date of Implementation Approval of City actions is anticipated by May 2011.
Previous Environmental Documents Prior environmental review was conducted for the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent amendments, including the following documents:
Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance, Harrington Square, September 2, 2003; and
Determination of Non-Significance, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments for Highlands Area, November 6, 2006. When appropriate, prior environmental documents were considered in the preparation of this EIS.
Location of Background Information See contact person above.
Availability of the Final EIS The document is posted on the City’s web site at http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=2060. Reference copies and copies for purchase (for the cost of production) are also available at Renton City Hall, Department of Community and Economic Development, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA, 98057. The document is also available as a reference at
Renton Housing Authority offices, 2900 Northeast 10th Street, Renton, WA 98056;
Highlands Brach Library, 2902 NE 12th Street, Renton, WA 98056; and
Renton Library, 100 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98057.
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement i April 2011
ICF 593.10
Contents
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... viii
Volume 1: Chapters
Chapter 1 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1‐1
1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1‐1
1.2 Proponent ..................................................................................................................... 1‐1
1.2.1 Project Location ............................................................................................... 1‐1
1.3 Proposal Overview ........................................................................................................ 1‐2
1.3.1 Sunset Terrace Redevelopment ...................................................................... 1‐2
1.3.2 Other Components of the Planned Action ...................................................... 1‐3
1.3.3 Planned Action Ordinance ............................................................................... 1‐3
1.4 Proposal Alternatives .................................................................................................... 1‐3
1.4.1 Alternative 1: No Action .................................................................................. 1‐4
1.4.2 Alternative 2 .................................................................................................... 1‐5
1.4.3 Alternative 3 .................................................................................................... 1‐5
1.4.4 Preferred Alternative ....................................................................................... 1‐6
1.5 Summary of Impacts ..................................................................................................... 1‐8
1.6 Summary of Mitigation Measures .............................................................................. 1‐47
1.7 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................................................................. 1‐62
Chapter 2 Proposal and Alternatives ............................................................................................... 2‐1
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2‐1
2.2 Proponent ..................................................................................................................... 2‐1
2.3 Project Location ............................................................................................................ 2‐1
2.4 Proposal Overview ........................................................................................................ 2‐3
2.4.1 Sunset Terrace Redevelopment ...................................................................... 2‐3
2.4.2 Other Components of the Planned Action ...................................................... 2‐4
2.4.3 Planned Action Ordinance ............................................................................... 2‐4
2.5 Background Information ............................................................................................... 2‐5
2.5.1 Regulatory Overview ....................................................................................... 2‐5
2.5.2 Planning and Community Involvement ........................................................... 2‐9
2.5.3 Renton Housing Authority Functions, Programs, and Project
Planning ......................................................................................................... 2‐13
2.5.4 Environmental Analysis and Review—SEPA and NEPA ................................. 2‐14
City of Renton Contents
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ii April 2011
ICF 593.10
2.6 Purpose and Need for Proposal .................................................................................. 2‐15
2.6.1 Study Area Conditions and Trends ................................................................ 2‐16
2.6.2 Sunset Terrace Public Housing Conditions and Trends ................................. 2‐18
2.6.3 Proposal Goals and Objectives ...................................................................... 2‐19
2.7 Proposal Alternatives .................................................................................................. 2‐21
2.7.1 Description of Proposal Alternatives ............................................................. 2‐22
2.7.2 Comparison of Features of Proposal Alternatives ......................................... 2‐27
2.8 Benefits and Disadvantages of Deferring Implementation ........................................ 2‐65
Chapter 3 Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative .............................................................. 3‐1
3.1 Earth ............................................................................................................................. 3‐1
3.1.1 Planned Action Study Area .............................................................................. 3‐1
3.1.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ......................................... 3‐3
3.1.3 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................... 3‐3
3.2 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... 3‐3
3.2.1 Planned Action Study Area .............................................................................. 3‐3
3.2.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ......................................... 3‐7
3.2.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3‐10
3.3 Water Resources......................................................................................................... 3‐10
3.3.1 Background and Methods ............................................................................. 3‐10
3.3.2 Change in Land Cover—Preferred Alternative .............................................. 3‐11
3.3.3 Planned Action Study Area ............................................................................ 3‐12
3.3.4 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ....................................... 3‐16
3.3.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3‐16
3.4 Plants and Animals ..................................................................................................... 3‐16
3.4.1 Planned Action Study Area ............................................................................ 3‐17
3.4.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ....................................... 3‐19
3.4.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3‐20
3.5 Energy ......................................................................................................................... 3‐20
3.5.1 Planned Action Study Area ............................................................................ 3‐20
3.5.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ....................................... 3‐21
3.5.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3‐22
3.6 Noise ........................................................................................................................... 3‐22
3.6.1 Planned Action Study Area ............................................................................ 3‐22
3.6.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ....................................... 3‐23
3.6.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3‐24
3.7 Environmental Health ................................................................................................. 3‐25
3.7.1 Planned Action Study Area ............................................................................ 3‐25
City of Renton Contents
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement iii April 2011
ICF 593.10
3.7.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ....................................... 3‐26
3.8 Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 3‐27
3.8.1 Planned Action Study Area ............................................................................ 3‐27
3.8.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ....................................... 3‐28
3.8.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3‐29
3.9 Socioeconomics .......................................................................................................... 3‐29
3.9.1 Planned Action Study Area ............................................................................ 3‐30
3.9.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ....................................... 3‐33
3.9.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3‐34
3.10 Housing ....................................................................................................................... 3‐34
3.10.1 Planned Action Study Area ............................................................................ 3‐34
3.10.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ....................................... 3‐35
3.10.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3‐36
3.11 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................. 3‐36
3.11.1 Planned Action Study Area ............................................................................ 3‐36
3.11.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ....................................... 3‐38
3.11.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3‐40
3.12 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................... 3‐40
3.12.1 Planned Action Study Area ............................................................................ 3‐40
3.12.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ....................................... 3‐41
3.12.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3‐42
3.13 Historic/Cultural ......................................................................................................... 3‐42
3.13.1 Planned Action Study Area ............................................................................ 3‐42
3.13.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ....................................... 3‐43
3.13.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3‐44
3.14 Transportation ............................................................................................................ 3‐44
3.14.1 Planned Action Study Area ............................................................................ 3‐44
3.14.2 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3‐52
3.14.3 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ....................................... 3‐53
3.15 Parks and Recreation .................................................................................................. 3‐53
3.15.1 Planned Action Study Area ............................................................................ 3‐57
3.15.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ....................................... 3‐57
3.15.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3‐58
3.16 Public Services ............................................................................................................ 3‐58
3.16.1 Planned Action Study Area ............................................................................ 3‐58
3.16.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ....................................... 3‐60
3.16.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 3‐61
City of Renton Contents
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement iv April 2011
ICF 593.10
3.17 Utilities ........................................................................................................................ 3‐61
3.17.1 Planned Action Study Area ............................................................................ 3‐62
3.17.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ....................................... 3‐62
3.17.3 Mitigation—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea .................. 3‐63
3.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .......................................... 3‐68
3.19 Local Short‐Term Uses of Environment and Long‐Term Productivity ........................ 3‐68
Chapter 4 Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS ....................................................................... 4‐1
4.1 Fact Sheet and Other Front Matter .............................................................................. 4‐1
4.2 Draft EIS Chapter 1 ....................................................................................................... 4‐1
4.3 Draft EIS Chapter 2 ....................................................................................................... 4‐1
4.4 Draft EIS Chapters 3 and 4 ............................................................................................ 4‐1
4.4.1 Earth ................................................................................................................ 4‐1
4.4.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................ 4‐1
4.4.3 Water Resources ............................................................................................. 4‐2
4.4.4 Plants and Animals .......................................................................................... 4‐2
4.4.5 Energy .............................................................................................................. 4‐4
4.4.6 Noise ................................................................................................................ 4‐4
4.4.7 Environmental Health ...................................................................................... 4‐4
4.4.8 Land Use .......................................................................................................... 4‐5
4.4.9 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................... 4‐5
4.4.10 Housing ............................................................................................................ 4‐5
4.4.11 Environmental Justice ...................................................................................... 4‐5
4.4.12 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................ 4‐5
4.4.13 Historic/Cultural .............................................................................................. 4‐5
4.4.14 Transportation ................................................................................................. 4‐6
4.4.15 Parks and Recreation ....................................................................................... 4‐7
4.4.16 Public Services ................................................................................................. 4‐9
4.4.17 Utilities ............................................................................................................. 4‐9
4.4.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................. 4‐10
4.4.19 Local Short‐Term Uses of Environment and Long‐Term
Productivity.................................................................................................... 4‐10
4.5 Draft EIS Chapter 5 ..................................................................................................... 4‐10
4.6 Draft EIS Chapter 6 ..................................................................................................... 4‐10
4.7 Draft EIS Chapter 7 ..................................................................................................... 4‐10
4.8 Draft EIS Chapter 8 ..................................................................................................... 4‐10
4.9 Draft EIS Appendices .................................................................................................. 4‐11
Chapter 5 Responses to Comments................................................................................................. 5‐1
City of Renton Contents
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement v April 2011
ICF 593.10
5.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 5‐1
5.2 Public Comments .......................................................................................................... 5‐1
5.3 Responses to Comments .............................................................................................. 5‐1
Chapter 6 Coordination and Consultation with Agencies and Tribes ............................................... 6‐1
Chapter 7 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................. 7‐1
Chapter 8 Distribution List .............................................................................................................. 8‐1
8.1 Federal, State, Tribal, Regional, County and City Agencies .......................................... 8‐1
8.1.1 Federal Agencies .............................................................................................. 8‐1
8.1.2 State of Washington Agencies ......................................................................... 8‐1
8.1.3 Tribal ................................................................................................................ 8‐2
8.1.4 Regional ........................................................................................................... 8‐2
8.1.5 Counties ........................................................................................................... 8‐2
8.1.6 Cities ................................................................................................................ 8‐2
8.1.7 Local Agencies ................................................................................................. 8‐2
8.2 Special Districts, Transportation, and Utilities ............................................................. 8‐2
8.3 Newspapers .................................................................................................................. 8‐3
8.4 Residents and Property Owners ................................................................................... 8‐3
Chapter 9 References and Acronyms .............................................................................................. 9‐1
9.1 References .................................................................................................................... 9‐1
9.1.1 Chapter 1 ......................................................................................................... 9‐1
9.1.2 Chapter 2 ......................................................................................................... 9‐1
9.1.3 Chapter 3 ......................................................................................................... 9‐3
9.1.4 Chapter 4 ......................................................................................................... 9‐3
9.1.5 Chapter 5 ......................................................................................................... 9‐4
9.1.6 Chapter 6 ......................................................................................................... 9‐4
9.1.7 Chapter 7 ......................................................................................................... 9‐4
9.1.8 Chapter 8 ......................................................................................................... 9‐4
9.2 Acronyms ...................................................................................................................... 9‐5
City of Renton Contents
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement vi April 2011
ICF 593.10
Tables
1‐1. Impacts of Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 1‐9
1‐2. Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................ 1‐49
1‐3. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................... 1‐63
2‐1. Zoning Classifications and Extent in the Planned Action Study Area ........................................ 2‐8
2‐2. Alternative Development Matrix—Neighborhood Land Use .................................................. 2‐28
2‐3. Alternative Development Matrix—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment
Subarea .................................................................................................................................... 2‐29
2‐4. Alternative Development Matrix—NE Sunset Boulevard ....................................................... 2‐30
2‐5. Alternative Development Matrix—Stormwater Management ............................................... 2‐32
2‐6. Summary of Land Capacity—Net Additional Growth above Existing—2030 .......................... 2‐34
2‐7. Existing and Total Growth—2030 ............................................................................................ 2‐36
3.2‐1. Planned Action Study Area Contribution to Forecast 2030 Regional Vehicle Miles
Traveled ..................................................................................................................................... 3‐4
3.2‐2. Assumed Land Use and Population Growth for Greenhouse Gas Emission
Calculations–Planned Action Study Area ................................................................................... 3‐5
3.2‐3. Comparison of GHG Emissions—Planned Action Study Area .................................................... 3‐6
3.2‐4. Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Contribution to Forecast 2030 Regional
VMT............................................................................................................................................ 3‐7
3.2‐5. Assumed Land Use and Population Growth for Greenhouse Gas Emission
Calculations—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ............................................ 3‐8
3.2‐6. Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Subarea ........................................................................................................... 3‐9
3.3‐1. Land Cover Summary—Preferred Alternative ......................................................................... 3‐11
3.3‐2. Change in Land Cover Summary—Preferred Alternative ........................................................ 3‐11
3.5‐1. Comparison of Annual Energy Usage—Planned Action Study Area ........................................ 3‐21
3.5‐2. Comparison of Annual Energy Usage—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment
Subarea .................................................................................................................................... 3‐22
3.6‐1. NE Sunset Boulevard Traffic Volumes in Planned Action Study Area..................................... 3‐23
3.6‐2. Modeled Peak‐Hour Noise Levels of NE Sunset Boulevard in the Planned Action
Study Area ............................................................................................................................... 3‐23
City of Renton Contents
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement vii April 2011
ICF 593.10
3.6‐3. Modeled Day‐Night Noise Levels of NE Sunset Boulevard in Potential Sunset
Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ............................................................................................ 3‐24
3.10‐1. Current and Proposed Dwellings1—Preferred Alternative ..................................................... 3‐35
3.14‐1. Study Intersections .................................................................................................................. 3‐45
3.14‐2. Intersection Operations—Preferred Alternative ..................................................................... 3‐48
3.15‐1. Existing and Future Level of Service for Park Facilities in Planned Action Study Area ............ 3‐55
3.15‐2. Existing and Future Levels of Service for Recreation Facilities in Planned Action
Study Area ............................................................................................................................... 3‐56
5‐1. Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft EIS Comment Letters ....................................... 5‐1
5‐2. Responses to Comments ........................................................................................................... 5‐2
City of Renton Contents
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement viii April 2011
ICF 593.10
Figures
2‐1. Planned Action Study Area ........................................................................................................ 2‐2
2‐2. Existing Comprehensive Land Use Designations ....................................................................... 2‐6
2‐3. Existing Zoning ........................................................................................................................... 2‐7
2‐4. Sunset Area Neighborhood Framework Diagram for Scoping Purposes ................................. 2‐11
2‐5. Age of Structures ..................................................................................................................... 2‐17
2‐6. Additional Growth by Alternative—2030—Revised ................................................................ 2‐35
2‐7. Additional Dwellings under Each Alternative by Subarea—2030—Revised ........................... 2‐35
2‐8. Additional Permanent Jobs under Each Alternative by Subarea—2030—Revised ................. 2‐36
2‐9. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Concept—Alternative 2 ........................................ 2‐38
2‐10. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Concept—Alternative 3 ........................................ 2‐39
2‐11. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Concept—Preferred Alternative ........................... 2‐41
2‐12. NE Sunset Boulevard—Alternative Cross Sections West of Harrington Avenue NE—
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 ............................................................................................................ 2‐47
2‐13. NE Sunset Boulevard—Alternative Cross Sections West of Harrington Avenue NE—
Preferred Alternative ............................................................................................................... 2‐48
2‐14. NE Sunset Boulevard—Alternative 2 Conceptual Layout ........................................................ 2‐51
2‐15. NE Sunset Boulevard—Alternative 3 Conceptual Layout ........................................................ 2‐53
2‐16. NE Sunset Boulevard—Preferred Alternative Conceptual Layout .......................................... 2‐55
2‐17. Green Connections—Preferred Alternative ............................................................................ 2‐57
2‐18. Public and Open Spaces ........................................................................................................... 2‐59
2‐19. Publicly Owned Sites in Planned Action Study Area ............................................................... 2‐62
2‐20. Alternative 3—Family Village Concept .................................................................................... 2‐63
3.3‐1. Potential Regional Stormwater Facilities and Green Connections .......................................... 3‐14
3.3‐2. Proposed Storm Drainage Facilities ......................................................................................... 3‐15
3.14‐1. Traffic Study Area and Study Intersections ............................................................................. 3‐45
3.14‐2. PM Peak‐Hour Traffic—2015 Preferred Alternative ................................................................ 3‐49
3.14‐3. PM Peak‐Hour Traffic—2033 Preferred Alternative ................................................................ 3‐50
3.15‐1. Parks and Recreation Facility Service Areas ............................................................................ 3‐54
3.17‐1. Fire‐Flow Phasing—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ................................. 3‐67
City of Renton Contents
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ix April 2011
ICF 593.10
Volume 2: Appendices
Appendix A. Preferred Alternative Evaluation Planned Action Goals and Objectives and LEED ND
Qualitative Review
Appendix B. Land Capacity Analysis
Appendix C. Potential Preferred Alternative Phasing and Variants of Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Conceptual Plans Similar to Preferred Alternative
Appendix D. Hillcrest Worksession
Appendix E. Proposed Planned Action Ordinance
Appendix F. Noise Analysis and Criteria—Preferred Alternative
Appendix G. Cultural Resources—Three Sites Study
Appendix H. Transportation Analysis—Preferred Alternative
Appendix I. Parks and Recreation Analysis—Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-1 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Chapter 1
Summary
1.1 Introduction This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addresses the Sunset Area Community Planned Action, which includes redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and associated neighborhood growth and revitalization (proposal). Sunset Terrace’s redevelopment provides the opportunity to evaluate the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood and determine what future land use redevelopment is desirable and what public service and infrastructure improvements should be made to create a more vibrant and attractive community for residents, businesses, and property owners. This chapter provides a summary of the Draft EIS for the Sunset Area Community Planned Action. It briefly describes the proposal and alternatives and contains an overview of significant environmental impacts identified for the alternatives. Please see Chapter 2 for a more detailed description of the proposal and alternatives and Draft EIS Chapter 4 and Final EIS Chapter 3 for a detailed presentation of impacts of the proposal and alternatives as well as mitigation measures and significant unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after mitigation. Text that has been inserted or deleted since the Draft EIS, including evaluation of a Preferred Alternative, is shown in underline or strikeout format.
1.2 Proponent The Renton Housing Authority (RHA) is the proponent of the proposal’s primary development action, the redevelopment of the existing Sunset Terrace public housing community. As the entity responsible for public service and infrastructure improvements for Sunset Terrace and the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood and for regulating private neighborhood redevelopment, the City of Renton (City) is the proponent of the broader Planned Action that would streamline local permitting and environmental review under Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA; Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 43.21C). The City implements SEPA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and is performing joint NEPA/SEPA environmental review in this EIS.
1.2.1 Project Location The Sunset Terrace public housing community is generally bounded by Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE on the north, NE 10th Street on the east, NE Sunset Boulevard (State Route 900) on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west. The Sunset Terrace public housing community is part of the Sunset Area Community neighborhood. This broader neighborhood is the Planned Action Study Area considered in this EIS; it is generally bounded by NE 21st Street on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7th Street on the south,
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-2 April 2011
ICF 593.10
and Edmonds Avenue NE to the west. The Sunset Area Community neighborhood is part of northeast Renton and is also known as or referred to as the Highlands area. The Planned Action Study Area has been broken down into subareas to allow the EIS discussion to distinguish the site-specific redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace property from the broader programmatic actions occurring throughout the Planned Action Study Area. The five subareas are shown in Chapter 2 on Figure 2-1 and described below.
Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea includes the Sunset Terrace public housing site and adjacent vacant or non-RHA owned RHA-purchased properties being considered for redevelopment into a mixed-use, mixed-income community. This subarea is being analyzed at a site-specific level, and is the primary action under review in this EIS for NEPA purposes.
Sunset Mixed Use Subarea encompasses larger parcels with a mix of uses that are centered on NE Sunset Boulevard (State Route 900).
Central Subarea is a multifamily area containing the current Highlands Library. This subarea is adjacent to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment and Sunset Mixed Use subareas.
North Subarea is made up of lower-density residential north of the Central and Sunset Mixed Use subareas, but also includes park and educational facilities.
South Subarea is a mostly lower-density residential district located south of NE Sunset Boulevard that includes park and educational facilities.
1.3 Proposal Overview The proposal is to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community as part of a Planned Action. Redevelopment of the public housing community and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance would encourage redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area through land use transformation and growth, public service and infrastructure improvements, and a streamlined environmental review process. The components of the proposal are described below.
1.3.1 Sunset Terrace Redevelopment The proposal includes redevelopment of RHA’s Sunset Terrace public housing community, a 7.3-acre property with 100 existing units contained in 27, 50-year-old, two-story buildings, located at the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE. RHA also owns additional vacant and residential land (approximately 3 acres with two dwelling units) along Edmonds Avenue NE, Glenwood Avenue NE, and Sunset Lane NE, and proposes to purchase additional property adjacent to Sunset Terrace, along Harrington Avenue NE (which contains about 8 dwellings)1
Conceptual plans currently propose redevelopment of Sunset Terrace and adjacent properties with mixed-income, mixed-use residential and commercial space and public amenities. The redevelopment would include a 1-to-1 unit replacement for all 100 existing public housing units, some of which would occur on site and some of which would occur elsewhere in the Planned Action
; RHA plans to incorporate these additional properties into the Sunset Terrace redevelopment for housing and associated services.
1 Only proposed under Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative, as described in Section 1.4.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-3 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Study Area. It is expected that, with the Sunset Terrace property and associated properties owned or purchased by RHA, up to 479 additional new units could be constructed with a portion of the units being public, affordable, and market-rate. Public amenities would be integrated with the residential development and could include the following: a community gathering space or “third place;” civic facilities such as a community center, senior center, and/or public library space; a new park/open space; retail shopping and commercial space; and green infrastructure.
1.3.2 Other Components of the Planned Action As a result of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment, it is expected that private redevelopment in the 269-acre Planned Action Study Area would be catalyzed over a 20-year period. Public service and infrastructure investments that would support both Sunset Terrace redevelopment and redevelopment elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area include: planned or anticipated upgrades to NE Sunset Boulevard and other local streets; stormwater drainage systems; neighborhood parks and recreation facilities; and neighborhood community facilities that may offer education, library, or social services. While some improvements have been anticipated in City plans, some have not (e.g., drainage master plan). To recognize proposed capital improvements, the City will make associated Comprehensive Plan amendments such as to the Capital Facilities and Transportation elements as part of the Planned Action process.
1.3.3 Planned Action Ordinance The City is also proposing to adopt a Planned Action Ordinance pursuant to SEPA. A Planned Action Ordinance, if adopted, would exempt future projects from SEPA threshold determinations or EISs, if they are determined to be consistent with the Sunset Area Community Planned Action EIS assumptions and mitigation measures. By streamlining the redevelopment permit process, the Planned Action Ordinance would increase the likelihood that planned public agency investments would lead to a transformation of the community.
1.4 Proposal Alternatives This section describes the Draft EIS alternatives and identifies the key land use and infrastructure elements of each. The proposal is to promote the redevelopment of public housing, implement infrastructure improvements throughout the Planned Action Study Area, and facilitate planning and environmental review for the Planned Action Study Area. The proposal is reviewed in terms of fourthree alternatives.
Alternative 1, No Action. The No Action Alternative represents conditions where Sunset Terrace public housing redevelopment would not occur, and very limited public investment would be implemented in the neighborhood (e.g., some community services but no NE Sunset Boulevard or master drainage plan improvements), resulting in lesser redevelopment across the Planned Action Study Area. A Planned Action would not be designated. The No Action Alternative is required to be studied under NEPA and SEPA.
Alternative 2. This alternative represents a moderate level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area based on investment in mixed-income housing and mixed uses in the Potential Sunset
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-4 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, targeted infrastructure and public services throughout the Planned Action Study Area, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance.
Alternative 3. This alternative represents the highest level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area, based on investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with a greater number dwellings developed in a mixed-income, mixed-use style, major public investment in study area infrastructure and services, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance.
Preferred Alternative. This alternative represents neighborhood growth similar to and slightly less than Alternative 3 in the Planned Action Study Area, based on investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with a moderate number of dwellings developed in a mixed-income, mixed-use style oriented around a larger park space and loop road, major public investment in study area infrastructure and services, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Each alternative is described in more detail below.
1.4.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 would continue the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications for the Planned Action Study Area, with limited public investment in redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing and in civic and infrastructure improvements in the Planned Action Study Area. With a low level of public investment, private investment in businesses and housing would be limited and would occur incrementally at scattered locations in the Planned Action Study Area. Land use form would largely continue to consist of single-use residential and single-use commercial developments with an occasional mix of uses. The development pattern would begin to transition incrementally from its current suburban pattern to a village center, but this transition would occur slowly over time due to the relatively low level of investment in public housing redevelopment and Planned Action Study Area improvements. A Planned Action would not be designated and each proposed development would be subject to individual environmental review. Some pedestrian- and transit-oriented development would occur, but it would be the exception rather than the rule, because new development would represent a small portion of the overall Planned Action Study Area. More piecemeal development could preclude opportunities for leveraging and combining strategies among individual projects. In the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, RHA would develop affordable housing and senior housing with supporting health services on two vacant properties, but it would not redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing property. The City would not make major infrastructure improvements. NE Sunset Boulevard would continue to emphasize vehicular mobility with less attention on pedestrian and transit facilities and limited aesthetic appeal (e.g., sparse landscaping). Drainage systems would continue as presently configured; any improvements would be localized, incremental, and in compliance with the City’s existing stormwater regulations. The current Highlands Library would be relocated from the Central Subarea to another location in the Planned Action Study Area; since a new site hadhas not been selected, as of the Draft EIS in December 2010, this alternative assumes a new community services building in the study area of sufficient size to house a library or other social service. Parks and recreation services would largely continue as they exist today.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-5 April 2011
ICF 593.10
1.4.2 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 provides for a moderate level of mixed-income housing and mixed uses in the Planned Action Study Area, while continuing the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications for the Planned Action Study Area. Infrastructure and public services would be improved in a targeted manner in the Planned Action Study Area. Stand-alone residential uses and local-serving commercial development would continue but would be interspersed with mixed-use development at identified nodes throughout the Planned Action Study Area such as the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and portions of NE Sunset Boulevard. Densities of new development would occur at moderate urban levels that are pedestrian- and transit-oriented. The environmental review process for development would be streamlined under a Planned Action Ordinance. RHA would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community according to a master plan on properties it currently owns; the redevelopment would allow for new public, affordable and market-rate housing accommodating a mixed-income community. All 100 existing public housing units would be replaced at a 1-to-1 ratio; some would occur on the current Sunset Terrace public housing property and some elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area; a duplex would be replaced with affordable townhouse units. An estimated 310 new dwellings would be developed in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, with more moderate-density flats and townhomes at a combined density of approximately 40 units per acre. New public amenities would include civic and community facilities, which may include a single-use library building with a plaza and/or a community services center/office building, as well as ground-floor retail, as required by zoning, and a proposed 0.89-acre park. Senior housing on RHA’s Piha site (See Chapter 2, Section 2.7.2.2) would include supportive health services. NE Sunset Boulevard would be improved to meet the intent of the City Complete Streets standards (Renton Municipal Code [RMC] 4-6-060). Improvements would largely occur within the current right-of-way and would allow for signal improvements, expanded sidewalks, greater landscaping, new transit shelters and street furniture, pedestrian- and street-level lighting, a bike lane/multi-purpose trail in one direction, consolidated driveways, and a center median with left-turn vehicle storage. No on-street business parking would be available (consistent with current conditions). Natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated in design of streets, parks, and new development. Options for green infrastructure are addressed in Chapter 2, Section 2.7.2.4. Active and passive recreation opportunities would be retained and enhanced through coordination between the Renton School District and the City such as through a joint-use agreement. Possible locations for enhancement include a reconfigured Hillcrest Early Childhood Center and North Highlands Park and repurposed public properties or acquired private properties in areas where demand for recreation is anticipated to be higher.
1.4.3 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 provides for a high level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area while maintaining the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications for the Planned Action Study Area. RHA would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community as part of redevelopment of the entire Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea into a mixed-income, mixed-use development according to a master plan. This alternative also includes major
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-6 April 2011
ICF 593.10
public investment in Planned Action Study Area transportation, drainage, sewer, water, cultural, educational, and parks and recreation facilities. This public investment in Sunset Terrace and neighborhood infrastructure and services would catalyze private property reinvestment at a greater scale and realize the existing permitted zoning uses and density, which would create greater opportunities for market-rate and affordable homeownership and rental housing opportunities, and for local and regional shopping opportunities. Land use patterns would be of an urban intensity focused along the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor and allow for vertical and horizontal mixed uses. Similar to Alternative 2, environmental review of development would be streamlined with a Planned Action Ordinance. It is expected that, with the Sunset Terrace property and associated properties owned or purchased by RHA, up to 479 additional new units could be created, some of which would be public, affordable, and/or market-rate, resulting in a density of approximately 52 units per acre. The existing 100 public housing units would be replaced at a 1-to-1 ratio. Replacement of the public housing units would occur on the current public housing site and elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area; the other duplex units located adjacent to Sunset Terrace would be replaced with townhouse units, some affordable and some market-rate. Public amenities would be integrated with the residential development and could include the following: a community gathering space in a vacated Harrington Avenue NE (at Sunset Lane NE), a new recreation/community center and senior center, a new public library in a mixed-use building, a new park and open space, retail shopping and commercial space, and/or green infrastructure. The civic and recreation spaces could act as a “third place.” A “family village” in the North Subarea would provide an opportunity for integrated reinvestment in housing, education, recreation, and supportive services designed to promote a healthy, walkable, and neighborhood-friendly community. NE Sunset Boulevard would be transformed to improve all forms of mobility and to create an inviting corridor through urban design amenities. A wider right-of-way would allow for intersection improvements, bike lanes in both directions, and sidewalks. Improvements to traffic operations at intersections would prioritize transit vehicles; there would also be a planted median with left-turn storage, and u-turns. Improved sidewalks and crosswalks together with streetscape elements such as street trees, transit shelters, street furniture, public art, and lighting would promote walkability. Added bike lanes would promote nonmotorized transportation. Natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated in design of streets, parks, and new development. Options for green infrastructure are addressed in Section 2.7.2.4. Active and passive recreation opportunities would be retained and enhanced. For example, the family village concept would allow for blending of education services outside the conventional K–12 spectrum such as early childhood education, the North Highlands Park, and RHA senior housing. Joint-use agreements could be forged between the City and the Renton School District to allow for public use of school grounds for parks and recreation purposes during non-school hours. When public properties are no longer needed for present uses, they could be repurposed for parks and recreation.
1.4.4 Preferred Alternative An environmentally preferable alternative that best meets NEPA’s goals to reduce impacts on natural and cultural features is required to be identified, no later than in the Final EIS. Designation of a preferred alternative is optional under SEPA. The City and RHA have identified an
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-7 April 2011
ICF 593.10
environmentally preferred alternative within the range of the Draft EIS Alternatives 1 through 3. The Preferred Alternative provides for:
mixed-use growth and transit and nonmotorized transportation improvements that result in regionally beneficial air quality and energy effects,
a drainage master plan that promotes green infrastructure and improves water quality,
expansion of parks and recreation facilities, and
greater housing and job opportunities. Key features are identified below. The Preferred Alternative provides for growth in the Planned Action Study Area similar to but less than Alternative 3, while maintaining the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications for the Planned Action Study Area. New growth in the neighborhood would be about 7% less than under Alternative 3. This reflects the preferred conceptual plan for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and refinements of a land capacity analysis presented in Final EIS Appendix B. Similar to Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative includes redevelopment of Sunset Terrace as well as a major public investment in Planned Action Study Area transportation systems; drainage, sewer, and water systems; and cultural, educational, and parks and recreation facilities. This public investment in Sunset Terrace and neighborhood infrastructure and services would catalyze private property reinvestment at a greater scale and realize the existing permitted zoning uses and density, which would create greater opportunities for market-rate and affordable homeownership and rental housing opportunities and for local and regional shopping opportunities. Land use patterns would be of an urban intensity focused along the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor and would allow for vertical and horizontal mixed uses. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, environmental review of development would be streamlined with a Planned Action Ordinance. RHA would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community as part of redevelopment of the entire Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. It would be redeveloped into a mixed-income, mixed-use development according to a master plan, featuring a “central” park of about 2.65 acres and a loop road. With a larger park space, the density of the Sunset Terrace development would be lower than under Alternatives 2 and 3, at 33 units per acre, though some density would shift outside the subarea to other portions of the Planned Action Study Area (see further discussion below). Public amenities would be integrated with the mixed-use development and could contain the following: a new park space, including over a segment of Harrington Avenue NE (at Sunset Lane NE) to be vacated; a reconfigured Sunset Lane NE along the library that could be used as a plaza; an elder day health center; a new public library in a single-purpose building; retail shopping and commercial space; and green infrastructure. The civic and recreation spaces could act as a “third place.” Similar to Alternative 3, a family village in the North Subarea would provide an opportunity for integrated reinvestment in housing, education, recreation, and supportive services designed to promote a healthy, walkable, and neighborhood-friendly community. NE Sunset Boulevard would be transformed, similar to under Alternative 3, to improve all forms of mobility and create an inviting corridor through urban design amenities. Improvements to traffic operations at intersections would prioritize transit vehicles; there would also be a planted median
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-8 April 2011
ICF 593.10
with left-turn lanes at intersections and two high-volume, mid-block driveway locations. Improved sidewalks and crosswalks, together with streetscape elements such as street trees, transit shelters, street furniture, public art, and lighting, would promote walkability. A multi-use trail along the west side of NE Sunset Boulevard would promote nonmotorized transportation. In addition to the multi-use trail on the west side of NE Sunset Boulevard, an eastbound bike lane would run from Edmonds Avenue NE up the hill to the City’s bike route on NE 10th Street. Natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated in design of streets, parks, and new development, similar to under Alternative 3. Several residential streets (designated as green connections) in the neighborhood would be transformed to improve pedestrian mobility, mitigate stormwater impacts (both for water quality and flow reduction), and create an inviting corridor to enhance the neighborhood. In addition to the Green Connections projects, the City would implement regional detention/retention improvements to provide advance mitigation for future increases in impervious area that could result from redevelopment. Options for green infrastructure are addressed in Section 2.7.2.4. Active and passive recreation opportunities would be retained and enhanced. This would include the 2.65-acre central park at Sunset Terrace. Due to the relocation and consolidation of Sunset Court Park at Sunset Terrace, as well as the proposed vacation of a portion of Harrington Avenue NE, the central park space would be enlarged compared to the other alternatives to better meet the needs of the increased population of the neighborhood. With relocation, the Sunset Court Park property would redevelop with housing units. Additionally, the family village would allow for blending of education services outside the conventional K–12 spectrum such as early childhood education, the North Highlands Park, and RHA senior housing. Joint-use agreements could be forged between the City and the Renton School District to allow for public use of school grounds for parks and recreation purposes during non-school hours. When public properties are no longer needed for present uses, they could be repurposed for other public purposes, such as parks and recreation.
1.5 Summary of Impacts Table1-1 highlights the impacts that would potentially result from the alternatives analyzed in this Draft EIS. The summary table is not intended to be a substitute for the complete discussion of each element that is contained in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS. For a complete discussion of the environmental elements considered in the Draft EIS, please refer to Draft EIS Chapter 4 and Final EIS Chapter 3.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-9 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Table 1-1. Impacts of Alternatives Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 4.1 Earth Construction Erosion could increase as a result of soil disturbance; however, much of the existing soils are glacial outwash materials with low erosion potential. Codified best management practices minimize the potential for both erosion and erosion transport to waterways.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
Construction could require import and export of earth materials; however, with minimal planning and protection, the outwash soils in most of the study area could be reused as backfill, minimizing import and export.
Similar to Planned Action Study Area. The underlying glacial outwash soils have the highest potential for reuse within the Planned Action Study Area and consequently the subarea.
Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
There is an increased risk of landsliding due to soil disturbance, changing drainage, or temporarily oversteepening slopes. However, a relatively small proportion of the study area is considered either steep slope or erosion hazard. Both the glacial outwash and till soils are generally strong and of low concern regarding slope instability.
There are no mapped geologic hazards, and thus a low potential for impacts.
Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
Operations Active seismicity in the Planned Action Study Area would require that inhabited structures, including buildings, bridges, and water tanks, be designed to withstand seismic loading.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-10 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Indirect The major steep slope, erosion, and landslide hazard areas within the Planned Action Study Area extend beyond the study area boundaries. Development on the slope above (inside) the study area boundary could increase the risk of erosion and landsliding downslope (outside) of the study area.
There are no mapped geologic hazards, and thus a low potential for impacts.
Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
Cumulative Same as indirect impacts above, intensive development around this hazard area outside of the Planned Action Study Area by other projects is not currently anticipated, but could increase the risk of erosion and landsliding.
There are no mapped geologic hazards, and thus a low potential for impacts.
Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
4.2 Air Quality Construction Dust from excavation and grading could cause temporary, localized increases in the ambient concentrations of fugitive dust and suspended particulate matter.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Construction impacts would be similar to Alternative 1, but the higher level of development would result in a greater increase in localized air pollutant emissions.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Construction impacts would be similar to Alternative 1, but with the highest level of development of the studied alternatives, increases in localized air pollutant emissions from construction would also be highest.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Similar to and within the range of those described in Alternatives 2 and 3. Same as Planned Action Study Area
Construction activities would likely require the use of diesel-powered, heavy trucks and smaller equipment such as generators and compressors. These engines would emit air pollutants that could slightly degrade local air quality in the immediate vicinity of the activity.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Construction impacts would be similar to Alternative 1, but the higher level of development would result in a greater increase in localized air pollutant emissions.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Construction impacts would be similar to Alternative 1, but with the highest level of development of the studied alternatives, increases in localized air pollutant emissions from construction would also be highest.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Similar to and within the range of those described in Alternatives 2 and 3. Same as Planned Action Study Area
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-11 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Some construction activities could cause odors detectible to some people in the vicinity of the activity, especially during paving operations using tar and asphalt. Such odors would be short-term and localized.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Construction impacts would be similar to Alternative 1, but the higher level of development would result in a greater increase in localized air pollutant emissions.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Construction impacts would be similar to Alternative 1, but with the highest level of development of the studied alternatives, increases in localized air pollutant emissions from construction would also be highest.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Similar to and within the range of those described in Alternatives 2 and 3. Same as Planned Action Study Area
Construction equipment and material hauling could temporarily increase traffic flow on city streets adjacent to a construction area. If construction delays traffic enough to significantly reduce travel speeds in the area, general traffic-related emissions would increase.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Construction impacts would be similar to Alternative 1, but the higher level of development would result in a greater increase in localized air pollutant emissions.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Construction impacts would be similar to Alternative 1, but with the highest level of development of the studied alternatives, increases in localized air pollutant emissions from construction would also be highest.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Similar to and within the range of those described in Alternatives 2 and 3. Same as Planned Action Study Area
Operations Emissions from Commercial Operations Stationary equipment, mechanical equipment, and trucks at loading docks at office and retail buildings could cause air pollution issues at adjacent residential property. However, new commercial facilities would be required to register their pollutant-emitting equipment and to use best available control technology to minimize emissions.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Operation impacts would be similar to Alternative 1, but the higher level of development result in a greater increase in localized air pollutant emissions from commercial activities.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Operation impacts would be similar to Alternative 1, but the highest level of development of the studied alternatives increases in localized air pollutant emissions from commercial activities would also be highest.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Similar to and within the range of those described in Alternatives 2 and 3. Same as Planned Action Study Area
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-12 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Emissions From Vehicle Travel Tailpipe emissions from vehicles would be the major source of air pollutant emissions associated with growth. Alternative 1 would produce 146,949 vehicle miles travelled (VMT), less than 1% of the Puget Sound regional 2030 VMT forecast. This would not alter Puget Sound Regional Council’s conclusion that future regional emissions will be less than the allowable emissions budgets of air quality maintenance plans.
The forecasted VMT from the subarea is only a small fraction of the Puget Sound regional totals. Future emissions from increased population and motor vehicles in the subarea would not cause significant regional air quality impacts.
The forecasted population and VMT for Alternative 2 are slightly higher than the forecasted values for Alternative 1. The net increases in VMT forecast as a result of this alternative are inconsequentially small compared to the Puget Sound regional VMT and its implied impact on regional emissions and photochemical smog.
Same as Planned Action Study Area The forecasted population and VMT for Alternative 3 are the highest of the studied alternatives. However, the net increases in VMT forecast as a result of Alternative 3 are inconsequentially small compared to the Puget Sound regional VMT and its implied impact on regional emissions and photochemical smog.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Forecasted population and VMT are higher than Alternative 2 and slightly lower than Alternative 3. The net increases in VMT forecast as a result of this alternative are inconsequentially small compared to the Puget Sound regional VMT and its implied impact on regional emissions and photochemical smog.
Forecast population and VMT are higher than the forecast values for Alternative 1 but slightly lower than the values for Alternative 2. The net increases in VMT forecast as a result of this alternative are inconsequential compared to the Puget Sound regional VMT and its implied impact on regional emissions and photochemical smog.
Air Quality Attainment Status Land use density and population would increase in the Planned Action Study Area; however, these increases represent only a small fraction of the Puget Sound regional totals. Furthermore, this alternative would not result in land use changes that include unusual industrial developments. Therefore, development in the Planned Action Study Area would not cause a substantial increase in air quality concentrations that would result in a change in air quality attainment status.
Same as Planned Action Study Area. Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Study Area and Subarea Alternative 1 is estimated to result in 20,512 metric tons/year of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the Planned Action Study Area.
Alternative 1 is estimated to produce 2,412 metric tons/year of GHG emissions for the subarea.
Greater growth under this alternative would result in estimated 29,227 metric tons/year of GHG emissions.
Greater growth under this alternative would result in an estimated 4,439 metric tons/year of GHG emissions.
With the highest level of growth of the studied alternatives, this alternative would result in an estimated to 45,7166 metric tons/year of GHG emissions.
With the highest level of growth of the studied alternatives, Alternative 3 would result in an estimated 6,612 metric tons/year of GHG emissions.
With a level of growth within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3, this alternative would result in an estimated 43,050 metric tons/year of GHG emissions.
Growth under this alternative would result in an estimated 3,760 metric tons/year of GHG emissions.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-13 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Outdoor Air Toxics The Planned Action Study Area is in a mixed-use residential and commercial zone that does not include unusual sources of toxic air pollutants. The major arterial street through the Planned Action Study Area (NE Sunset Boulevard) does not carry an unusually high percentage of heavy-duty truck traffic. Thus, Alternative 1 would not expose existing or future residents to disproportionately high concentrations of toxic air pollutants generated by local emission sources.
Impacts on outdoor air toxics would be similar to those described for the Planned Action Study Area.
Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
Indoor Air Toxics See Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea RHA development of affordable housing on two vacant properties in the subarea would be constructed according to local building codes that require adequate insulation and ventilation. Regardless, studies have shown that residents at lower-income developments often suffer higher rates of respiratory ailments than the general public. Therefore, the City and RHA will explore measures to improve indoor air quality beyond what is normally achieved by simply complying with building codes.
Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-14 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Indirect and
Cumulative
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Subarea, Study Area, and Region2
For this analysis, Alternative 1 represents the future no-action scenario that is used as the basis of comparison to evaluate future GHG emissions from the action alternatives.
Same as Planned Action Study Area More transit-oriented development in the study area under this alternative would reduce regional GHG emissions compared to Alternative 1, a net reduction of 1,724 metric tons/year.
More transit-oriented development in the subarea under this alternative would reduce regional GHG emissions compared to Alternative 1, a net reduction of 225 metric tons/year.
With the highest level of transit-oriented development in the study area of the studied alternatives, this alternative would provide the greatest regional GHG emission reductions, a net reduction of 4,164 metric tons/year.
With the highest level of transit-oriented development in the subarea of the alternatives studied, this alternative would provide the greatest reduction in regional GHG emissions, a net reduction of 467 metric tons/year.
More transit-oriented development in the subarea would reduce GHG emissions compared to Alternative 1, by 3,907 metric tons/year.
More transit-oriented development in the subarea would reduce GHG emissions compared to Alternative 1, by 150 metric tons/year.
4.3 Water Resources Construction Construction impacts on water resources would be addressed through compliance with Core Requirement #5 for Erosion and Sediment Control in the Renton Stormwater Manual and compliance with Ecology’s NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit, if the project results in 1 acre or more of land-disturbing activity. Also see 4.1, Earth, above.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
Operations Water Quality and Land Cover The resulting net change in pollution-generating impervious area within the Planned Action Study Area (not including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) is estimated to be a reduction of approximately 7.0 acres (7.9%) from existing conditions due to non-roadway-related projects. The net change in effective impervious area would be an increase of
There would be no change in the total area of pollution generating surfaces remaining untreated. Presuming that the planned projects that are part of this alternative cannot fully infiltrate or disperse runoff, the estimated change in effective impervious area would result in an increase of approximately 1.5 acres (33%) over existing conditions.
Implementation of the green connections and the NE Sunset Boulevard reconstruction project is estimated to result in a net reduction of approximately 14.7 acres of untreated pollution-generating impervious area and approximately 4.1 acres of effective impervious area. The resulting net change in pollution-generating impervious area within
All untreated pollution-generating impervious surfaces within the subarea would be eliminated, resulting in a reduction of 1.83 acres of untreated pollution-generating surface from the Johns Creek Basin. The estimated change in effective impervious area would result in an increase of approximately 0.56 acre (12%) over existing conditions.
Implementation of the green connections and the NE Sunset Boulevard reconstruction project is estimated to result in a net reduction of approximately 14.7 acres of untreated pollution-generating impervious area (similar to Alternative 2) and approximately 6.6 acres of effective impervious area. The resulting net change in pollution-generating
Under this alternative all untreated pollution-generating impervious surfaces within the subarea would be eliminated, resulting in a reduction of 1.83 acres of untreated pollution-generating surface from the Johns Creek Basin. The estimated change in effective impervious area would result in a decrease of approximately 0.51 acre (11%) compared to existing conditions.
Implementation of the green connections and the NE Sunset Boulevard reconstruction project under the Preferred Alternative is estimated to result in a net reduction of approximately 15.7 acres of untreated pollution-generating impervious area and approximately 3.1 acres of effective impervious area. The resulting net change in pollution-generating
Under this alternative all untreated pollution-generating impervious surfaces within the subarea would be eliminated, resulting in a reduction of 1.83 acres of untreated pollution-generating surface from the Johns Creek Basin. The estimated change in effective impervious area would result in a decrease of approximately 1.07 acres (23%) compared to existing conditions 2 For purposes of comparing the beneficial reductions in regional GHG emissions, it is important to balance future growth outside the study area as well as within the study area. It was assumed that the lower amount of future developed square footage in the study area under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would be balanced by developers constructing equal square footage elsewhere in the Puget Sound region in response to assumed market demand for housing, office, and commercial space. Thus, the total amount of future additional regional square footage was balanced to the same values for all alternatives; however, under Alternatives 2 and 3, more of the development (TOD) would be inside the study area.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-15 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea approximately 3.75 acres (2.3%) from existing conditions. the study area (exclusive of the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) is estimated to be a reduction of approximately 40.5 acres (46%) from existing conditions. The net change in effective impervious area would be an increase of approximately 1.0 acre (0.6%) from existing conditions.
impervious area within the study area (exclusive of the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) is estimated to be a reduction of approximately 40.5 acres (46%) from existing conditions. The net change in effective impervious area would be an increase of approximately 1.3 acres (0.8%) from existing conditions.
impervious area within the Planned Action Study Area (exclusive of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) is estimated to be a reduction of approximately 41.8 acres (48%) from existing conditions. The net change in effective impervious area would be an increase of approximately 3.2 acres (1.9%) from existing conditions.
Indirect and
Cumulative
The operations analysis above presents cumulative impacts in terms of total impervious surfaces and potential water quantity and quality impacts, as well as indirect impacts on receiving water bodies outside of the study area. Alternative 1 assumes application of the City stormwater code to reduce the potential impacts of increased impervious area within the study area.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Alternative 1, except that Alternative 2 would implement a drainage master plan that provides mitigation in advance of development through public infrastructure investments in the green connections.
Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1, except that Alternative 3 would implement a drainage master plan, and mitigation would be provided in advance through the self-mitigating public stormwater infrastructure features including a combination of green connections, regional stormwater flow control, and possible public-private partnership opportunities for retrofits.
Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1, except that the Preferred Alternative would implement a drainage master plan and mitigation would be provided in advance through the self-mitigating public stormwater infrastructure features including those described under Alternative 3. Under the Preferred Alternative, the City proposes to construct a regional stormwater facility that would be designed to maintain active and open recreation space allowing water to be treated within a series of small integrated rain gardens along the edge of the proposed Sunset Terrace Park and connecting the subsurface to an underground infiltration bed beneath open space.
Same as Alternative 1
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-16 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 4.4 Plants and Animals Construction Individual redevelopment projects would result in short-term loss of vegetation cover, along with noise and activity levels that would result in little or no use of the construction areas by wildlife during the period of construction. Redevelopment actions would be required to comply, during construction, with City regulations requiring temporary erosion and sedimentation controls to prevent water quality impacts from work site stormwater runoff.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
Operations Redevelopment activities that would be expected to occur under Alternative 1 would have a small effect on plant or wildlife habitat in the area given the already developed character and little vegetation. The expected small reduction in habitat combined with a small improvement in habitat quality due to stormwater codes and urban forestry plans is likely to result in no measurable change in the variety or population sizes of wildlife species occurring in the study area.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment activities that would be facilitated under the planned action ordinance would have a limited effect on plant or wildlife habitat in the Planned Action Study Area. New development being designed as Low Impact Development (LID) is likely to result in a measurable decline in total vegetated area, accompanied by a measurable improvement in plant diversity and quality of the remaining habitat. There would also be some restructuring of wildlife habitat continuity compared to Alternative 1.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Impacts on plants, wildlife, and fish would be very similar to those described under Alternative 2, but would be substantially greater due to the greater projected density increase. Green connections and urban forestry plans offset to some degree by greater redevelopment, the net result is likely to be a reduction in habitat connectivity and a decline in total vegetated area, albeit with some improvement in plant diversity and quality of the remaining habitat. Largely due to the absence of impacts on special-status species, effects on wildlife would be less than significant.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Impacts on plants, wildlife, and fish would be very similar to those described under Alternative 2, but would be less than Alternative 3. Green connections and urban forestry plans offset to some degree by greater redevelopment, the net result is likely to be a reduction in habitat connectivity and a decline in total vegetated area, albeit with some improvement in plant diversity and quality of the remaining habitat. Largely due to the absence of impacts on special-status species, effects on wildlife would be less than significant.
Same as Planned Action Study Area
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-17 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
Indirect The increased residential density within the area can be expected to result in effects such as increased wildlife mortality due to predation by pets, and reduced wildlife diversity due to increases in opportunistic species such as starlings, crows, and rats. These indirect impacts can be expected to result in reduced numbers, vigor, and diversity of plant and wildlife species. Compliance with stormwater codes is expected to avoid indirect impacts on aquatic habitats and fish.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Alternative 2 would result in an indirect impact on plants and wildlife by contributing to a substantial increase in the human population within the area. This can be expected to result in effects such as increased wildlife mortality due to road kill and predation by pets, and reduced wildlife diversity due to increases in opportunistic species such as starlings, crows, and rats. These indirect impacts can be expected to result in reduced numbers, vigor, and diversity of plant and wildlife species. The stormwater commitments incorporated in Alternative 2 would be sufficient to avoid indirect impacts on aquatic habitats and fish.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Indirect impacts on plants and wildlife would also be similar to those described under Alternative 2, but the adverse impacts would be greater in proportion to the greater density proposed under this alternative. Stormwater commitments proposed under Alternative 3, coupled with existing regulations, would be sufficient to avoid substantial impacts on aquatic habitats and fish.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Indirect impacts on plants and wildlife would also be similar to but less than those described under Alternative 3 under this alternative. Stormwater commitments proposed under the Preferred Alternative,, including green stormwater infrastructure, coupled with existing regulations, would be sufficient to avoid substantial impacts on aquatic habitats and fish.
Same as Planned Action Study Area
Cumulative No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact 4.5 Energy Construction During construction, energy would be consumed by demolition and reconstruction activities. These activities would include the manufacture of construction materials, transport of construction materials to and from the construction site, and operation of machinery during demolition and construction.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-18 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Operations Energy Usage: Study Area and Subarea The annual energy usage for the study area under Alternative 1 is estimated at 101,663 million British thermal units (Btu).
Total annual energy usage for the subarea is forecast at 11,034 million Btu. Total annual energy usage for the study area is estimated at 156,063 million Btu, higher than Alternative 1 due to a higher level of growth.
Total annual energy usage for subarea is estimated at 26,457 million Btu, higher than Alternative 1 due to a higher level of growth.
With the highest level of the growth of the studied alternatives, this alternative would result in the highest estimate of total annual energy usage for the study area: 275,529 million Btu.
With the highest level of the growth of the studied alternatives, this alternative would result in the highest estimate of total annual energy usage for the subarea: 43,654 million Btu.
Total annual energy usage for the study area is estimated at 255,845 million Btu, higher than Alternative 2, but lower than Alternative 3.
Total annual energy usage for the subarea is estimated at 21,338 million Btu, lower than Alternatives 2 and 3.
Indirect and
Cumulative Energy Usage: Subarea, Study Area, and Region 3 Alternative 1 represents the future no-action scenario that is used as the basis of comparison to evaluate the future energy usage from the action alternatives. The total annual energy usage increase for the study area plus regional growth equals 304,722 million Btu.
Total annual energy usage increase for the subarea plus regional growth is estimated at equal to 47,278 million Btu.
With more transit-oriented and high-density development than Alternative 1, this alternative is estimated to result in a reduction of regional energy usage for the study area compared to Alternative 1 by of 11,853 million Btu.
With more transit-oriented and high-density development, Alternative 2 is estimated to result in a net reduction in regional annual energy usage for the subarea compared to Alternative 1 of 1,714 million Btu.
With the highest level of transit-oriented and high-density development of the studied alternatives, Alternative 3 would provide the greatest estimated regional energy usage reduction for the study area compared to Alternative 1: 29,194 million Btu.
With the highest level of transit-oriented and high-density development of the studied alternatives, Alternative 3 would provide the greatest net reduction in regional annual energy usage for the subarea compared to Alternative 1: 3,624 million Btu.
With more transit-oriented and high-density development than Alternative 1 or 2, this alternative is estimated to result in a reduction of regional energy usage for the study area compared to Alternative 1 by 26,383 million Btu.
With more transit-oriented and high-density development, the Preferred Alternative is estimated to result in a net reduction in regional annual energy usage for the subarea compared to Alternative 1 of 1,145 million Btu.
4.6 Noise Construction Development in the study area would require demolition and construction activity, which would temporarily increase noise levels at residences close to the development site. This type of activity could cause annoyance and speech interference at outdoor locations adjacent to the construction sites, and could cause discernible noise.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Development in the study area would result in noise impacts from construction activities similar to those described for Alternative 1; however, the impacts would be greater due to the higher level of development..
Same as Planned Action Study Area Development in the study area would result in noise impacts similar to those described for Alternative 1; however the impacts would be greater than under the other two alternatives due to the greater amount of development.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Development in the study area would result in noise impacts similar to those described for Alternative 1; however. the impacts would fall within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3 due to the anticipated amount of development.
Same as Planned Action Study Area
3 For purposes of comparing the beneficial reductions in regional energy usage, it is important to balance future growth outside the study area as well as within the study area. It was assumed that the lower amount of future developed square footage in the study area under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would be balanced by developers constructing equal square footage elsewhere in the Puget Sound region in response to assumed market demand for housing, office, and commercial space. Thus, the total amount of future additional regional square footage was balanced to the same values for all alternatives; however, under Alternatives 2 and 3, more of the TOD development would be inside the study area.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-19 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Operations Noise from New Commercial Operations Unless properly controlled, mechanical equipment (e.g., rooftop air conditioning units) and trucks at loading docks of office and retail buildings in the study area could cause ambient noise levels at nearby residential housing units to exceed the City noise ordinance limits.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Noise impacts in the study area would be similar to those described under Alternative 1, but would be greater due to the greater amount of development.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Impacts in the study area would be similar to those described under Alternative 1; however, the impacts would be greatest under this alternative due to the higher level of development.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Impacts in the study area would be similar to those described under Alternative 1; however, the impacts would fall within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3 under this alternative because the amount of commercial development falls within this range.
Same as Planned Action Study Area
Indirect and
Cumulative
Noise from Increased Traffic: Proposal with Future Traffic Levels For most residents adjacent to roadways in the study area, increased traffic would result in the greatest increase in ambient noise levels, caused by moving traffic and vehicles idling at intersections.
The estimated day-night noise levels from NE Sunset Boulevard at the adjacent buildings indicates they would be exposed to “normally unacceptable” noise levels exceeding U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) outdoor day-night noise criterion of 65 dBA. The noise levels at these first row residential dwellings currently exceed the HUD noise criterion and would continue to exceed the criterion under this alternative.
Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative 1, but would be greater due to the greater amount of development and related traffic.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Development under this alternative would result in the greatest noise increase from vehicles traveling on NE Sunset Boulevard and local streets. Regardless, noise impacts resulting from Alternative 3 would be similar to those described under Alternative 1.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Development under this alternative would result in noise increase from vehicles traveling on NE Sunset Boulevard and local streets in the range of Alternatives 2 and 3. Regardless, noise impacts resulting from the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those described under Alternative 1.
Same as Planned Action Study Area
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-20 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 4.7 Environmental Health Construction Potential construction impacts include releasing existing contaminants to the environment by ground-disturbing or dewatering activities, encountering underground storage tanks (USTs) or leaking USTs, generating hazardous building materials that require special disposal, and accidentally releasing hazardous substances.
Existing subsurface contaminations have not been identified on the redevelopable properties and, therefore, are not expected to be encountered during construction. Hazardous building materials such as lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) would not be generated from demolition of the existing Sunset Terrace buildings, because it would not be redeveloped. If there are lead-based paints or ACMs at the duplex, appropriate permits and precautions would be required. Accidental release of hazardous substances during construction could still occur as in all construction projects.
The primary potential construction impact under Alternative 2 is encountering or releasing hazardous substances into the environment during construction, as described for Alternative 1.
None of the sites with identified use or documented releases of hazardous substances are present within this subarea. Therefore, the potential to encounter uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances in the environment during construction is relatively low. Accidental release during construction would be the same as for Alternative 1.
The construction impacts described under Alternatives 1 and 2 are also applicable to Alternative 3; however, the potential for these impacts to occur would be higher because of the higher level of development proposed.
Same as Alternative 2 The construction impacts described under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are also applicable to the Preferred Alternative; however, the potential for these impacts to occur would be slightly less than Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 2
Operations If development occurs on contaminated sites, where appropriate clean-up measures were not completed or residual contaminations were present, then there is a potential risk to public health for people using the site.
No impact Potential impacts would be the same as described under Alternative 1. The potential for hazardous material releases could increase relative to Alternative 1 because of the increased level of commercial development and roadway/transit improvements. In addition, hazardous substances, such as oil and other lubricants, are used or transported during routine operation and maintenance of transit facilities or roadways.
No impact The operation impacts described under Alternatives 1 and 2 are also applicable to Alternative 3; however, the potential for these impacts to occur would be higher because of the higher level of development proposed.
No impact The operation impacts described under Alternatives 1 and 2 are also applicable to the Preferred Alternative; however, the potential for these impacts to occur would be slightly less than Alternative 3 because of the level of development proposed.
No impact
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-21 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
Indirect No impact No impact The removal of contaminated groundwater, hazardous building materials, or USTs would result in an overall cleaner environment and reduced risk to human health and the environment.
The removal of hazardous building materials or USTs would result in an overall cleaner environment and reduced risk to human health and the environment.
Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2
Cumulative No impact No impact As development occurs in the study area and the surrounding region, the population and activity level will rise and the number of people exposed to hazards related to the transport of hazardous materials will increase.
The hazardous materials impact of the potential development in the subarea is so small it would make only a negligible contribution to the cumulative impact within the region.
Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2
4.8 Land Use
Construction The incremental development occurring under this alternative would minimize the number of nearby residents exposed to temporary construction impacts including dust emissions, noise, construction traffic, and sporadic interference with access to adjacent residences and businesses.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Construction impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative 1, but the greater amount of development would affect more residents and land uses.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Construction impacts would be similar to Alternative 2, but to a greater extent because of the greater amount of development.
Similar to Alternative 2, but greater due to more development. Construction impacts would be similar to Alternative 3, but to a slightly less extent because of the lesser amount of development.
Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, but slightly less due to level of development.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-22 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Operations Land Use Patterns Development would implement the City’s Comprehensive Plan designations in a more incremental and piecemeal manner than under the other alternatives. Development would more than double the number of residential units within the study area, as property owners redeveloped their properties using zoning designations allowing taller buildings and more intense mixed-use development.
Development would result in less vacant land and more developed properties. This represents an intensification of land uses as approximately 175 new housing units are built. However, with the exception of one duplex associated with the Edmonds-Glenwood site, existing buildings in the subarea would remain.
Alternative 2 would add 1,660 dwellings and 790,000 square feet of commercial space above existing conditions. More development would occur as intense mixed-use development in buildings up to 60 feet in height and more development would be influenced by targeted public investments. Alternative 2 would provide a larger increase in employees than residents. The majority of new commercial development would be in the form of service uses (62%), including office development and civic/community space, financial institutions and similar types of uses; the remainder (38%) would be retail.
Alternative 2 would triple the amount of housing provided in the subarea, with more than 300 dwellings and 38,000 square feet of retail and service uses beyond that provided under Alternative 1.
Alternative 3 would provide more than 2,500 dwelling units and 1.3 million square feet of commercial space compared to existing conditions. Redevelopment would provide more commercial development than residential development. Alternative 3 provides more commercial growth, of which about 62% would be service (e.g., office and financial institution uses) and 38% retail. This alternative would also provide more than two times as many residential dwellings as currently exist in the study area.
Alternative 3 would provide about 479 more dwelling units than existing conditions in a mixed-use development that integrates commercial and civic spaces. This alternative would provide roughly between 170 and 300 more dwelling units and roughly between 7,000 and 39,000 square feet more commercial space than Alternatives 2 and 1, respectively.
The Preferred Alternative would provide more than 2,300 dwelling units and 1.2 million square feet of commercial space compared to existing conditions. Similar to Alternative 3, redevelopment would provide more commercial development than residential development, and a similar split between service and retail development.
The Preferred Alternative would provide about 266 more dwelling units than existing conditions in a mixed-use development that integrates commercial and civic spaces, falling within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2.
Plans and Policies Generally, Alternative 1 implements the City’s land use and zoning designations within the study area, according to the development types envisioned in policies. It also provides the least consistency with the 2006–2031 growth targets ratified through a regional process in May 2010, which call for 14,835 dwelling units and 29,000 jobs to be accommodated over that 25-year planning period. The City has 3 years from ratification of new growth targets in which to amend its Comprehensive Plan for consistency with the
Alternative 1 provides infill of new residential development in areas with the Center Village (CV) designation consistent with land use and housing policies. However, the alternative does not disperse low-income housing as called for in Policy H-29, nor does it discourage the creation of socioeconomic enclaves as called for in Policy LU-149.
Alternative 2 provides a greater degree of consistency with the City Land Use Element goals and policies than Alternative 1, because it goes further in implementing the development types envisioned in the City’s land use and zoning designations within the study area. Growth anticipated in the study area under this alternative would help the City in meeting its 2031 housing and employment targets. Public investments anticipated under this alternative would need to be accounted for in
Alternative 2 provides a greater degree of consistency with the City’s Land Use Element goals and policies than Alternative 1 by promoting redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex with a mixed-income development. Alternative 2 also does more to develop the Center Village as envisioned in land use policies.
Alternative 3 provides the greatest degree of consistency among the alternatives with the City Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, and policies. Alternative 3 goes the furthest in implementing the development types envisioned in the City’s land use and zoning designations within the study area. Anticipated growth does the most to help the City in meeting its 2031 housing and employment targets. Similar to Alternative 2, public investments would need to be accounted for in amendments to the City’s Transportation and
Alternative 3 provides the greatest degree of consistency with the City’s land use element goals and policies of all alternatives by promoting the redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community. It also does more than other alternatives to develop the Center Village. Development in the subarea under this alternative has a similar consistency as the study area for other City goals and policies, providing a greater degree of consistency with those goals and policies than other alternatives.
The Preferred Alternative provides a similar degree of consistency with plans and policies as Alternative 3.
The Preferred Alternative provides a similar degree of consistency with plans and policies as Alternative 3.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-23 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea revised targets. amendments to the City’s Transportation and Capital Facilities elements, consistent with Goal 8 of the Transportation Element and Policy CFP-3 of the Capital Facilities Element.
Capital Facilities elements.
Indirect and
Cumulative
No indirect or cumulative land use impacts are anticipated outside the study area. The City applies its policies and development regulations to create a planned land use pattern. Density is most intense at the center of the study area and least along its boundaries with single-family residential land use patterns; it is unlikely to alter patterns or plans along the edges of the study area. The City will, as part of its regular comprehensive plan review and amendment updates, control the monitoring, evaluation, and amendment process.
The limited new development would not provide as much of an incentive for other redevelopment opportunities near the subarea as under the action alternatives.
Same as Alternative 1 Redevelopment of the subarea under this alternative would serve as an incentive for other redevelopment opportunities near the study area.
Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 2
4.9 Socioeconomics
Construction Construction activities could temporarily increase congestion and reduce parking, local access for businesses and residents, and access near the construction activities, which could negatively affect businesses; however, businesses located close to construction activities could experience an increase in revenue from spending by construction workers. Construction would result in beneficial impacts related to the creation of jobs and increased
Impacts would be similar to those in the Planned Action Study Area. Tenants of one duplex would need to relocate. Some short-term economic benefits would result from the construction of new affordable housing and a senior health facility on the vacant land adjacent to the Sunset Terrace complex.
Construction impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative 1, but the intensity would be greater due to the greater amount of development.
The demolition of the Sunset Terrace complex to allow for the subarea redevelopment would require the relocation of the tenants. Moreover, the relocation of the tenants could affect some local businesses during construction, if the tenants are relocated outside of the immediate area; however, since the total number of relocations represents a small portion of the overall population any impact would likely be small in scale.
Same as Alternative 2 though increased due to greater levels of growth under Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 2 Similar to Alternative 2 though greater due to levels of growth under the Preferred Alternative. Slightly less impact than Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative 2
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-24 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea spending; however, with limited civic investment redevelopment would likely occur at a slower rate than the under other alternatives, limiting the benefits associated with new employment and income.
Operations The study area would likely continue to develop and grow; however, with the lower level of development compared to Alternatives 2 or 3, change would occur more slowly, and population characteristics would likely remain similar to existing conditions. It is anticipated that the library would be relocated to a more prominent and larger site with adequate access consistent with King County Library System plans. Another beneficial change in community services would be the addition of elder day-health services in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.
Development would occur on the largely vacant RHA-owned sites and one duplex would be redeveloped. Housing conditions would not change for the tenants within the existing Sunset Terrace complex. A greater number of senior citizens would reside in the subarea with the construction of the senior housing; daytime use for non-resident seniors would also increase with the addition of the day-health program. The elder day-health proposal would provide a beneficial service beyond the subarea to the Planned Action Study Area and the broader Renton community.
Future dwelling estimates for Alternative 2 are about 11% greater than Alternative 1 (only 3% higher without the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea), and there is a greater emphasis on jobs at a 137% increase over Alternative 1. Median household income would likely increase with the greater number of affordable and market-rate units attracting residents of all ages and incomes. Improvements in the streetscape along NE Sunset Boulevard and the other infrastructure improvements would make the study area more desirable to investment, which could lead to additional opportunities for employment as more businesses are attracted to the study area. Impacts on community institutions related to the
It is anticipated that an additional 310 dwelling units, beyond the 102 replacement dwelling units, and 164 new jobs would be created in the subarea. The new community facilities would improve cohesion for the residents, as tenants may feel more a part of the redeveloped community, and provide new locations for residents to gather and interact. Similar to Alternative 1, another beneficial service would be the addition of elder day-health services.
The higher number of dwelling units and jobs under Alternative 3 would result in greater intensities in development and economic benefits. There would be a 68% dwelling unit increase and 264% job increase relative to Alternative 1. In addition to the facilities that would be added under Alternative 2, Alternative 3 includes a family village and a wider reconstruction of NE Sunset Boulevard. The family village would include housing, education, recreation, and supportive services that would be designed to promote a healthy and walkable neighborhood.
Alternative 3 would provide the greatest number of dwelling units and jobs. Under Alternative 3, about 479 net dwelling units would be constructed, housing a population increase of 1,106. There would be an additional 18 jobs compared to Alternative 2. Impacts would be similar to those described for the subarea under Alternative 2 with the addition of civic facilities.
The Preferred Alternative would add 2,339 dwelling units, which is anticipated to increase the population by approximately 5,403 persons. By 2030, the Planned Action Study Area is anticipated to have 4,460–4,498 jobs of which the Preferred Alternative would contribute between 3,154 and 3,192 jobs. As with Alternative 3, a family village would be included in the Preferred Alternative, which would include housing, education, recreation, and supportive services.
It is anticipated that there would be a net increase of 266 new dwelling units added to the area, increasing population by 614 persons and creating between 79 to 117 new jobs. Population characteristics of the subarea would change to a greater degree than in the Planned Action Study Area, because of the addition affordable and market-rate units.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-25 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea library relocation and senior health services would be similar to those described for Alternative 1.
Indirect Construction spending would result in positive indirect effects on the economic elements of employment and income in the study area and the regional economy as businesses that support the construction effort would likely see increased spending. The benefits associated with new retail and commercial space as well as a mixture of affordable and market-rate dwelling units would be realized to a lesser extent than the other alternatives.
Construction in the subarea would be largely on vacant sites and would provide some short-term economic benefits. Residents would not receive any benefits associated with the new community facilities or the improvements along NE Sunset Boulevard that would be incorporated under Alternatives 2 and 3.
Indirect construction impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative 1, but with the additional public and private investment the economic benefits would be greater due to the increased spending.
Increased spending is anticipated with the mixture of affordable and market-rate units, which would result in positive impacts on the businesses in the area as well as local tax revenues.
Similar to Alternative 2 but higher due to greater amount of development. Similar to Alternative 2 but higher due to greater amount of development. Similar to Alternative 2 though greater due to levels of growth under the Preferred Alternative. Slightly less construction than Alternative 3.
Similar to Alternative 2.
Cumulative The existing socioeconomic conditions would be maintained for a longer period of time, as new development occurs more slowly due to limited public investment.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Cumulative effects would be positive with the addition of new development that would continue to enhance the area and continue to improve the neighborhood vitality.
As the area changes and new housing is provided, no existing public units would be lost and improvements in the neighborhood would likely continue as new developments are constructed.
Similar to Alternative 2 but higher due to the greater amount of development.
Similar to Alternative 2 but higher due to the greater amount of development.
Similar to Alternative 2 though greater due to levels of growth under the Preferred Alternative. Slightly less growth than Alternative 3.
Similar to Alternative 2.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-26 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 4.10 Housing
Construction Construction of commercial, residential, and civic uses in the study area would create temporary noise, dust, and construction traffic, which would affect current residents.
Construction of residential and civic uses would create temporary noise, dust, and construction traffic, which would affect adjacent residents to the north, east, and south of the subject properties.
Impacts would be the same as for Alternative 1, except that there would be a greater amount of construction and a greater potential for impacts on surrounding land owners.
Construction of residential, commercial, and civic uses would create temporary noise, dust, and construction traffic, which would affect current residents, particularly those residents that remain during the construction of the first phase of the project.
Impacts would be the same as for Alternative 1, but with the greatest amount of development, Alternative 3 would have the greatest potential for impacts on surrounding land owners.
Same as Alternative 2 The potential for construction impacts in the Planned Action Study Area under the Preferred Alternative is similar to but slightly less than Alternative 3 given the slightly lower growth projections.
Similar to Alternative 2
Operations It is estimated that about 16% of the parcels could redevelop over the next 20 years and about 54 dwellings could be replaced with other development, principally new dwellings, though a few could be converted to commercial uses along NE Sunset Boulevard. Alternative 1 would add up to approximately 1,489 new dwellings, which would more than double present dwellings. As with existing conditions, most new units would be multifamily. Most properties in the study area are relatively more low-cost than in other parts of Renton, and new dwellings could be built at market rates, though some are planned to be affordable (see Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea).
As the proposed dwellings in the subarea would largely occur on vacant sites, minimal displacement would result. One duplex would be redeveloped. Under Alternative 1, 175 dwellings would be added. All dwellings added would be affordable, either to families (Edmonds-Glenwood site) or to seniors (Piha site).
Alternative 2 assumes that about 32% of the study area acreage would infill or redevelop, and this would lead to replacement of about 231 dwellings. Alternative 2 would add up to approximately 1,658 new dwellings, about 11% more than Alternative 1 and 129% more than current dwellings. Most new units would be multifamily. The potential for additional market-rate dwellings is similar but slightly greater than Alternative 1. More dwellings have the potential to be affordable in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea than for Alternative 1.
The number of units eliminated would include 102 public housing and duplex dwellings. However, all public housing units would be replaced, with about 88 redeveloped in the subarea and 12 developed in the study area. The number of units added would be 310 above existing dwellings, for a total of 420 units. Of these about 75% would be public or affordable, and 24% would be market-rate.
Alternative 3 assumes 40% of the study area acreage would infill or redevelop. This would result in the greatest number of dwellings replaced at 299. Alternative 3 would add up to approximately 2,507 new dwellings, about 194% more than current dwellings, 68% more than Alternative 1, and 51% more than Alternative 2. Most new units would be multifamily. The potential for additional market-rate dwellings is similar but greater than Alternatives 1 and 2. More dwellings have the potential to be affordable in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area than for Alternatives 1 and 2.
In this subarea, 110 public housing and duplex dwellings would be eliminated. There would be a 1:1 replacement of public housing units on site and in the Planned Action Study Area. The number of units added would be 479 above existing dwellings, for a total of 589 units. Of these, approximately 74% would be either affordable or public and 26% would be market-rate dwelling units.
The Preferred Alternative would add up to approximately 2,339 new dwellings, about 181% more than current dwellings, 57% more than Alternative 1, 41% more than Alternative 2, and 7% less than Alternative 3. Most new units would be multifamily. Some units would be public or affordable.
The number of units added would be 266 above existing dwellings, for a total of 376 units. Of these, approximately 78% would be public and affordable, and 22% would be market-rate dwelling units.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-27 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
Indirect Increased housing could increase local resident spending at businesses in the study area, and could also create an increased demand for parks and recreation, public services, and utilities.
The potential for residents to help support local businesses as well as to create a demand for services is similar to the Planned Action Study Area.
The potential for residents to help support local businesses as well as to create a demand for services is similar to but greater than under Alternative 1, due to the increased number of dwellings under Alternative 2.
The potential for residents to help support local businesses as well as to create a demand for services is similar to the Planned Action Study Area.
The potential for residents to help support local businesses as well as to create a demand for services is similar to but greater than Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, due to the increased number of dwellings in Alternative 3.
The potential for residents to help support local businesses as well as to create a demand for services is similar to the Planned Action Study Area.
Under the Preferred Alternative, the potential for residents to help support local businesses as well as to create a demand for services is similar to and slightly less than Alternative 3.
The potential for residents to help support local businesses as well as to create a demand for services is similar to Alternative 2.
Cumulative Growth in the study area would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and its growth targets for the year 2022. It would contribute to meeting growth targets for the City’s next Comprehensive Plan Update for the year 2031.
The support of the new dwellings to assist the City in meeting growth targets is similar to the Planned Action Study Area.
Growth in the study area would be slightly greater than previously planned under Alternative 1, but this slight increase of 11% would contribute to meeting the City’s higher growth targets for the year 2031.
The support of the new dwellings to assist the City in meeting growth targets is similar to the Planned Action Study Area.
Growth in the study area would be greater than previously planned in Alternative 1, but this increase of 68% would contribute to meeting the City’s higher growth targets for the year 2031.
The support of the new dwellings to assist the City in meeting growth targets is similar to the Planned Action Study Area.
Growth in the study area would be greater than previously planned in Alternative 1, but this increase of 57% would contribute to meeting the City’s higher growth targets for the year 2031.
The support of the new dwellings to assist the City in meeting growth targets is similar to the Planned Action Study Area.
4.11 Environmental Justice Construction Residents near construction activities would likely be affected by temporary noise, dust, and visual impacts due to construction; these impacts would be short-term in nature. The population of the study area is predominately non-minority and non-low-income and any negative impacts would likely occur on these populations to a greater degree than the minority and low-income populations.
Because the existing Sunset Terrace complex would not be redeveloped, relocation of existing Sunset Terrace public housing tenants would not occur. However, the RHA-owned duplex at the Edmonds-Glenwood site would be redeveloped, and relocation services for tenants of the two units would be provided.
Residents in close proximity to construction on NE Sunset Boulevard would also be affected by dust, noise, visual, and traffic impacts. Because the study area population is predominately non-minority and non-low-income, these impacts would not be considered disproportionately high and adverse on minority or low-income populations.
The demolition of the Sunset Terrace complex and construction of the proposed Alternative 2 conceptual plans would require the relocation of the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex likely through Section 8 vouchers. Because the tenants are low-income and predominately minority, this would constitute a greater impact on these populations than other populations.
Under Alternative 3, a higher level of growth and major public investment in infrastructure and public services throughout the study area would result in construction impacts similar to but more widespread than the other alternatives.
Construction impacts could occur for a longer duration due to the additional amount of development associated with Alternative 3, but it is not anticipated that any relocations of the tenants would be for a longer duration and impacts associated with relocation would be the same as those identified under Alternative 2.
The Preferred Alternative would result in a relatively high level of growth and major public investment in infrastructure and public services throughout the Planned Action Study Area, similar to Alternative 3. This alternative would result in construction impacts greater than Alternatives 1 and 2 but similar to Alternative 3.
Construction impacts could occur for a longer duration due to the amount of development associated with the Preferred Alternative, but it is not anticipated that any relocations of the tenants would be for a longer duration and impacts associated with relocation would be the same as those identified under Alternative 2.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-28 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
Operations Without the pedestrian- and transit-oriented improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard under this alternative, the benefits to low-income populations, who may rely on these forms of travel, would not occur. Residents would not realize the improved community cohesion and aesthetics from the park proposed under the action alternatives in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea or potential health benefits from increases in physical activity from any new parks or from the added bike lanes along NE Sunset Boulevard.
Development of additional affordable housing on vacant properties in this subarea would be beneficial to lower-income populations; however, under Alternative 1, redevelopment of public housing, which would be beneficial for the lower-income populations, would not occur. The existing tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would not benefit from the new housing directly; they would remain living in the current housing complex that is antiquated and dilapidated.
Residential, commercial, and recreational development and civic and infrastructure improvements under Alternative 2 would improve the overall neighborhood, making it a more cohesive and desirable place to live. This would benefit all populations within the study area, including minority and lower-income populations.
Alternative 2 would have a number of beneficial effects minority and low-income populations in the subarea, including the redevelopment of the existing dwelling units, construction of additional units, transportation improvements, and the addition of other community facilities (i.e., senior center, parks). These changes would result in improvements to public health and to the aesthetics of the area. These would all improve community cohesion for subarea residents.
Residential, commercial, and recreational development and civic and infrastructure improvements under Alternative 3 would improve the overall neighborhood, making it a more cohesive and desirable place to live for all populations in the community, including minority and low-income populations.
Same as Alternative 2 Similar to Alternative 3, with the inclusion of a family village, the Preferred Alternative would improve cohesion for all residents by providing a new gathering location. The family village would be beneficial for all populations in the Planned Action Study Area, but these benefits could accrue to a greater degree for minority and low-income populations due to the close proximity, especially for those without access to a vehicle.
Similar to Alternative 2, an additional 10 duplex units would be redeveloped with townhouse style housing that could be affordable or priced at the market rate. Current public housing and duplex tenants would be offered the opportunity to move into new units available in the subarea.
Indirect With limited investment in the study area, any indirect benefits of redevelopment and associated growth would be low. The introduction of new retail and commercial space within the study area would increase employment opportunities. These opportunities would benefit all study area populations, but could benefit minority and low-income populations to a greater degree.
New retail and commercial space would be outside of the subarea, but the new employment opportunities could be seen as more beneficial to subarea residents who may be unemployed or not have a their own vehicle and would, therefore, benefiting more from the proximity.
Although additional development would occur in the study area, the indirect impacts would be the same as those identified under Alternative 1.
Although additional development would occur in the subarea, the indirect impacts would be the same as those identified under Alternative 1. Increasing the variety of residential unit types and affordability levels would reduce the concentration of low-income households in the subarea, and thereby reduce or eliminate some of the social consequences of such concentrations.
Although additional development would occur in the study area beyond what is planned for in Alternative 2, the indirect impacts would be similar to those identified under Alternative 1.
Although additional development would occur in the subarea beyond what is planned for in Alternative 2, the indirect impacts would be similar to those identified under Alternative 1. Also, similar to Alternative 2, increasing the variety of residential unit types and affordability levels would reduce the concentration of low-income households in the subarea, and thereby reduce or eliminate some of the social consequences of such concentrations.
Although additional development would occur in the study area beyond what is planned for in Alternatives 1 and 2, the indirect impacts would be similar to those identified under Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 2.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-29 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
Cumulative Cumulative impacts would depend on the type of development planned in the area. There would be beneficial effects on all populations with the addition of new housing and jobs.
New housing would consist of affordable family and senior housing. This could benefit environmental justice populations.
Cumulative impacts would primarily be beneficial. As the area continues to redevelop with new investments, public and private, it would become more desirable for the residents and would continue to create new jobs. The new development and addition of more market-rate units could cause the study area to become less affordable to lower-income populations, which could result in these populations needing to relocate outside of the study area.
Adverse impacts are not anticipated. New dwelling units would be affordable, public, and market-rate units. The beneficial cumulative impacts identified under the Planned Action Study Area would be similar.
As the study area continues to redevelop with new investments, public and private, it would become more desirable for the residents and would continue to create new jobs. Also, similar to Alternative 2, but with a greater potential due to greater growth, the new development and addition of more market-rate units could cause the study area to become less affordable to lower-income populations, which could result in these populations needing to relocate outside of the study area.
Similar to Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 3 The cumulative impacts identified under the Planned Action Study Area are not anticipated within the subarea, because the public housing units would be replaced and other affordable, public, and market-rate units would be developed. Public units would be administered by RHA. The beneficial cumulative impacts identified under Alternatives 2 and 3 would be similar.
4.12 Aesthetics
Construction The demolition of existing structures and construction of new buildings would expose nearby residents to visual impacts, including dust, the presence of construction equipment, stockpiles of construction materials, localized increases in vehicular traffic, and on-site construction activities. For each alternative, these activities would occur sporadically at various locations throughout the Planned Action Study Area and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, would be localized to the construction site, and would be temporary in nature.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-30 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
Operations Visual Character Because public investment in the Planned Action Study Area would be lower under Alternative 1, private redevelopment would be limited, and occasional changes would occur to the visual character of the area compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. While some residential and mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented development may occur as infill or redevelopment on 16% of the parcel acreage, most of the existing older housing stock would not be replaced by new construction.
Overall, the visual character of the subarea from NE Sunset Boulevard would remain very similar to existing conditions, but there would be some change along interior streets such as Sunset Lane NE where largely vacant properties would develop.
Under Alternative 2, visual character in the Planned Action Study Area would undergo some changes. Overall, about 32% of the Planned Action Study Area acreage would infill or redevelop, which would lead to a greater change in character to a mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented community. Redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area would also replace aging housing stock with newer, higher-quality construction.
Under Alternative 2, the visual character of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would change from its current state to a pedestrian-oriented community with a mix of residential, ground-floor commercial, and community uses surrounding an approximately 0.89 acre park.
The extensive public investment under Alternative 3 would result in widespread changes to the visual character of the Planned Action Study Area affecting about 40% of parcel acres. Private development would take full advantage of the current development regulations, resulting in a transition to a mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented neighborhood.
Under Alternative 3, the visual character of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would change from its current state to a pedestrian-oriented community with a mix of residential, ground-floor commercial, and community uses linked by public spaces and landscaped pedestrian pathways.
The Preferred Alternative would result in slightly less growth than Alternative 3 overall, which would result in less change to the existing visual environment. The urban density anticipated to result from the Preferred Alternative would be similar to, but slightly less than, Alternative 3. The application of adopted design standards as new construction that would gradually replace older buildings would result in an overall improvement of the visual environment in the Planned Action Study Area.
Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, the visual character of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would change from its current state to a pedestrian-oriented community with a mix of residential, ground-floor commercial, and community uses. The Preferred Alternative would focus less residential development in the subarea than Alternative 3, making room for a larger neighborhood park.
Height and Bulk Private redevelopment would occur more sporadically, and building heights would change at fewer locations in the Planned Action Study Area, with more change anticipated in the Sunset Mixed Use Subarea. In areas where redevelopment does occur, building heights would remain limited to 50 feet for residential-only development and 60 feet for buildings with ground-floor retail. Differences in height, particularly in the Center Village (CV) zone, could require the application of design standards, such as increased setbacks adjacent to residential zoning.
Under the No Action Alternative, heights in the subarea would remain similar to current conditions along NE Sunset Boulevard, with some changes along interior streets up to four stories on two vacant parcels to the northwest and one vacant parcel to the northeast.
Height and bulk in the Planned Action Study Area would moderately increase under Alternative 2. Private redevelopment would be concentrated near areas of public reinvestment, such as the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and along NE Sunset Boulevard. The height of new development would be limited by current zoning at 50 feet, or 60 feet for mixed-use buildings with ground-floor retail, which is taller than the one to two stories typically seen throughout much of the Planned Action Study Area.
Under Alternative 2, this subarea would experience moderate increases in height and bulk over existing conditions. Heights would range from two to four stories. As a result, visual bulk in the subarea would change moderately from the present two-story scale.
Alternative 3 would result in redevelopment of the Planned Action Study Area to take greater advantage of currently allowed uses and heights. In most areas zoned CV, this would result in building heights of four to five stories, which is a moderate increase over current conditions, which range from 1 to 3 stories.
Under Alternative 3, the subarea would experience moderate increases in height and bulk over existing conditions. Heights would range from two to four stories, and buildings would generally be located closer to the street than under current conditions.
Similar to Alternative 3, the tallest building heights under the Preferred Alternative would occur on property zoned CV. Overall, the Preferred Alternative would result in slightly less growth within the Planned Action Study Area than Alternative 3.
Building height and bulk would range from one to four stories, which is similar to Alternative 3. The Preferred Alternative, however, would provide much more park space than Alternative 3, providing a sense of openness to the Sunset Terrace site. In addition, buildings on the site would be arranged to place 2-story townhomes adjacent to the park and taller multifamily residential buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-31 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Shade and Shadow Because large increases in building height would not occur in the Planned Action Study Area under the No Action Alternative, shading impacts are not anticipated to be significant. Isolated shading impacts could occur where new development is located adjacent to older buildings of lower height.
Under the No Action Alternative, height increases in the subarea would be limited to the new RHA housing facilities, which would have the potential to increase shading of adjacent properties to the north, though the effect would be minor due to similarity in height.
As described above under “Height and Bulk,” Alternative 2 has the potential to result in localized height increases. Also, shading impacts could occur where new development is adjacent to existing structures of two stories or lower, such as along Glenwood Avenue NE.
Under Alternative 2, increases in building heights in the subarea would be likely to affect shading conditions. Taller buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard would cast longer shadows on the interior of the subarea to the north, potentially shading sidewalks along Sunset Lane NE at various times of the day.
Because heights in the Planned Action Study Area would generally increase under Alternative 3, shading effects would also become more pronounced, though only to a moderate degree. Increased building heights within the Planned Action Study Area could result in increased shading of pedestrian areas and public spaces, particularly along NE Sunset Boulevard, which is likely to see some of the most intense commercial and mixed-use development.
Due to the anticipated increases in building height and lot coverage in the subarea, shading conditions are also likely to change. Taller buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard would cast longer shadows on the interior of the subarea to the north, potentially shading sidewalks along Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE at various times of the day.
Under the Preferred Alternative, heights in the Planned Action Study Area would generally increase, creating localized increases in shading over current conditions. Similar to Alternative 3, taller buildings in the Planned Action Study Area have the potential to shade pedestrian areas and public spaces, especially along NE Sunset Boulevard.
Similar to Alternative 3, taller buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard would cast longer shadows on the interior of the subarea to the north, potentially shading sidewalks along Sunset Lane NE. However, the increased size of the central park under the Preferred Alternative, as well as the placement of 2-story townhomes adjacent to the park, would reduce the potential for adverse shading effects compared to Alternative 3.
Indirect/ Cumulative While redevelopment of the public facilities discussed under the various alternatives would be a coherent effort, private development throughout the study area would occur piecemeal. Individual private developments are likely to be of higher density, greater height, and a different architectural style than existing development, and have the potential to create temporary aesthetic conflicts where they are located adjacent to older structures. Over time, as more properties redevelop, the temporary conflicts would be less frequent and less noticeable. This effect would be least pronounced under the No Action Alternative.
Redevelopment would occur on largely vacant properties but is not anticipated to change Sunset Terrace and would be less of a catalyst for change in the broader Planned Action Study Area.
Similar to Alternative 1 but more pronounced temporary aesthetic conflicts given more locations anticipated for redevelopment.
Redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace housing facility would be a localized action, but additional private development is anticipated to occur in response to this public investment, and each private development project would contribute to the overall transformation of the area’s aesthetic character.
Similar to Alternatives 1 and 2 but greater temporary aesthetic conflicts are anticipated given more locations anticipated for redevelopment.
Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 3 Same as Alternative 2
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-32 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 4.13 Historic and Cultural Resources
Construction Typical project impacts that could disrupt or adversely affect cultural resources in the Planned Action Study Area include demolition, removal, or substantial alteration without consideration of historic and archaeological sites and/or features.
No significant cultural resources are known to exist in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.
Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
Operations, Indirect,
and Cumulative
Impacts
Development could occur on or near parcels in the Planned Action Study Area that contain previously identified or unknown cultural resources. This development would likely involve ground disturbance and modifications to buildings and structures, which could result in a potentially significant impact on cultural resources. Under Alternative 1, the study area would experience less growth and related development than under Alternatives 2 or 3, and impacts on cultural resources are likely to occur with less frequency. Because of the potential to impact unknown cultural resources, a detailed review of potential impacts on cultural resources would be required on a project-specific basis.
No significant cultural resources are known to exist in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.
Alternative 2 supports a higher level of growth in the study area than the No Action Alternative, necessitating a corresponding higher level of development. Therefore, Alternative 2 is more likely to have impacts on cultural resources. Because of the potential to impact unknown cultural resources, detailed review of potential impacts on cultural resources would be required on a project-specific basis.
Same as Alternative 1 Alternative 3 supports the highest level of study area growth of the studied alternatives. Therefore, Alternative 3 would provide the highest frequency of opportunities to encounter cultural resources over time. Because of the potential to impact unknown cultural resources, detailed review of potential impacts on cultural resources would be required on a project-specific basis.
Same as Alternative 1 There would be more opportunities to encounter cultural resources over time than under the No Action Alternative, but fewer than under Alternative 3. Because of the potential to affect unknown cultural resources, detailed review of potential impacts on cultural resources would still be required on a project-specific basis.
Future development in the subarea under the Preferred Alternative would have no impact on any known NRHP-eligible archaeological or historic resources, and the likelihood of impacts on unknown cultural resources is considered low.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-33 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 4.14 Transportation
Construction Alternative 1 is not expected to result in construction impacts, because no roadway construction is proposed.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Potential impacts that could result from Alternative 2 construction activities include increased traffic volumes, increased delays, detour routes, and road closures. Lane closures in both directions of NE Sunset Boulevard could be required during construction of Alternative 2. This reduction in capacity would likely increase travel times, and may force reroutes through local streets.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Alternative 2 Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Alternative 2 Same as Planned Action Study Area
Operations Traffic Operations In 2015, the all-way-stop-controlled intersection at Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street could operate at level of service (LOS) E due to increases in background traffic growth on the southbound approach. The Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street intersection operates at LOS D, and although the LOS standard is met, the results indicate it is nearing capacity. In 2030, this intersection could be expected to worsen to LOS E, while the adjacent intersection on Edmonds Avenue NE at NE 12th Street could operate at LOS F due to increases in southbound delay.
Studied intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better. Increases in residential volumes and future delays are not expected to adversely impact traffic within the subarea because of the lower volumes and ample capacity.
Alternative 2 is expected to have higher average vehicle delay times compared to Alternative 1. Although vehicle delay would increase, the LOS between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would remain similar in the Years 2015 and 2030 at Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street and at Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street intersections.
Similar to Alternative 1 Alternative 3 is expected to have the highest average vehicle delay times of the studied alternatives. At Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street LOS F conditions are predicted in both 2015 and 2030. At Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street LOS F conditions are expected in 2030.
Delay times in the subarea could worsen slightly due to the increase in trips generated, but intersections would likely operate better than the LOS D threshold. On the southern border of the subarea, the intersections on NE Sunset Boulevard at Harrington Avenue NE and at NE 10th Street are expected to operate better than LOS B in 2015, and better than LOS C in 2030.
In 2030, two intersections would operate at LOS F under the Preferred Alternative: Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street, and Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street. Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street would also operate at LOS F in 2015.
In the subarea traffic delay times could worsen slightly over Alternative 1 due to the increase in trips generated by the Preferred Alternative, but intersections would likely operate better than the LOS D threshold given volumes and growth similar to Alternative 3.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-34 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
Transit No changes are expected. Same as Planned Action Study Area Alternative 2 includes improved transit amenities along NE Sunset Boulevard. At NE 10th Street and at Edmonds Avenue NE, expanded bus zones are proposed on both sides of the road. These bus zones would provide a safe, well-lit waiting area for transit users, and are conveniently located near proposed retail or residential land uses.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Similar to Alternative 2, at both Edmonds Avenue NE and at NE 10th Street, expanded bus zones in both directions of travel would provide larger waiting areas for transit users and would be conveniently located near residential or retail land uses. Bus zones and existing bus stops could include shelters with adequate lighting and street furniture.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Alternative 3. Same as Planned Action Study Area
Nonmotorized No changes in nonmotorized facilities or transit are expected except for those nonmotorized improvements identified in the Renton Trails and
Bicycle Master Plan adopted in May 2009 (City of Renton 2009a).
Same as Planned Action Study Area Nonmotorized facilities under Alternative 2 would be improved compared to existing conditions. A new 5-foot-wide designated bicycle lane would be included in the eastbound direction of NE Sunset Boulevard from NE Park Drive to NE 10th Street. East of NE 10th Street, the bicycle lane transitions to a paved, multi-use shared bicycle and pedestrian pathway. This pathway is buffered from vehicular traffic by landscaping and a planter strip. Other pedestrian-level design amenities such as benches, trash receptacles, wayfinding signs, and art would be incorporated to encourage pedestrian activity in the study area.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Alternative 3 includes improved nonmotorized facilities such as bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and marked crosswalks. A 5-foot-wide designated bicycle lane is provided in both directions of NE Sunset Boulevard within the traffic study area. Design elements such as bike route signage, bike storage lockers, and bicycle detection at signalized intersections are included in Alternative 3 to promote bike ridership and safety.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Non-motorized facilities would be similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, with the exception being the bicycle lane on NE Sunset Boulevard. The Preferred Alternative includes a 5-foot-wide eastbound bicycle lane, rather than bicycle lanes in both directions (as in Alternative 3). Sidewalk connections from NE Sunset Boulevard to side streets would be improved, strengthening the connectivity between the residential areas and NE Sunset Boulevard. To improve safety for pedestrians crossing the roadways, the Preferred Alternative includes special paving at crosswalks and intersections.
Same as Planned Action Study Area
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-35 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Sustainability Alternative 1 is not measured in terms of sustainability principles, because no improvements are proposed.
Same as Planned Action Study Area In the Greenroads evaluation, Alternative 2 scores most strongly in the “Access and Equity” section, based on its improvements to access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. Alternative 2 is likely to contribute to lower consumption of energy by encouraging more pedestrian activity and less vehicle travel.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Alternative 3 scored equally to Alternative 2 on the Greenroads evaluation due to the project elements common to both alternatives. As with Alternative, 2, Alternative 3 scores strongest in the “Access and Equity” section of the Greenroads evaluation similar to the reasons described for Alternative 2. While Alternative 3 typically includes higher levels of improvements or higher quality of improvements over Alternative 2, such as wider sidewalks, wider planting areas, and special paving, the Greenroads evaluation does not take into account the quality of elements, only whether best practices are included in the project.
Same as Planned Action Study Area The Preferred Alternative scores a minimum of 33 with a maximum of up to 99 out of 118 points in the Greenroads metric; therefore, it would meet the minimum Greenroads certification level and could achieve the highest level of certification. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, the Preferred Alternative scores most strongly in the “Access and Equity” section of the Greenroads evaluation, as improving access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users are important elements of this alternative. The Preferred Alternative is similar to Alternative 3 in that it typically includes higher levels of improvements or higher quality of improvements over Alternative 2, such as wider sidewalks, wider planting areas, and special paving.
Same as Planned Action Study Area
Indirect and
Cumulative
Growth would be consistent with adopted Comprehensive Plan land use estimates and the operational analysis addresses cumulative traffic conditions considering planned growth.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Growth would increase in comparison to Comprehensive Plan land use estimates; however, the Alternative 2 operational analysis is based on a model that addresses growth cumulatively on the City’s current and planned roadway system. Results are similar to Alternative 1.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Growth would increase in comparison to Comprehensive Plan land use estimates; however, the Alternative3 operational analysis is based on a model that addresses growth cumulatively on the City’s current and planned roadway system. Potential cumulative impacts are greater than Alternatives 1 and 2.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Potential cumulative impacts are greater than Alternative 1, but less than Alternative 3, and can be mitigated to meet City of Renton thresholds.
Same as Planned Action Study Area
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-36 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 4.15 Parks and Recreation
Construction Construction could temporarily disrupt pedestrian access to existing park properties. Active construction sites also represent opportunities for creative play and attractive adventure for young people in the community.
No parks and recreation facilities exist in this subarea and no construction impacts are anticipated.
Construction impacts would be as described for Alternative 1; however there would be a greater potential with the construction of street and drainage improvements to temporarily disrupt access to existing parks from nonmotorized routes.
Same as Alternative 1 Construction impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative 2; however Alternative 3 would have the greatest potential of the studied alternatives to result in growth and construction that could temporarily disrupt access to existing parks from nonmotorized routes.
Same as Alternative 1 Similar to Alternative 3 Same as Alternative 1
Operations Under the No Action Alternative, no changes are planned to the parks and recreation facilities within the Planned Action Study Area; the park system would remain as it exists today. By 2030, there would be a deficiency in both neighborhood park and community park acreage and in fields, courts and trails (depending on whether school facilities are counted); accordingly the future forecasted population in both the study area and parks service areas would be underserved based on current City level of service (LOS) standards. Ballfield and sport court LOS standards would be applied citywide; thus a lack of such facilities within the Planned Action Study Area or the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea does not indicate an LOS deficiency.
No parks and recreation facilities exist in this subarea and no parks would be added under this alternative. The subarea would be underserved according to the City’s parks and recreation LOS standards.
With the future increase in population for Alternative 2, an increase in demand for park and recreation facilities is anticipated. Although parks and community center space are added (via the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) and a pocket park system is contemplated, a net deficiency could remain in both neighborhood and community park land and in fields, courts, and trails (depending on whether school facilities are counted)under future conditions; as a result the population would continue to be underserved. Ballfield and sport court LOS standards would be applied citywide; thus a lack of such facilities within the Planned Action Study Area or the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea does not indicate an LOS deficiency.
Parks and recreation facilities are proposed including a 0.89-acre park and 38,500 square feet of community service space. However, as part of the overall Planned Action Study Area, the subarea would be underserved when applying the City’s parks and recreation LOS standards. The Complete Streets improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard would improve pedestrian connections between the subarea and park and recreation facilities.
Under Alternative 3, population in the Planned Action Study Area increases the most of studied alternatives. With this increase, the demand for parks and recreation facilities would increase more than under Alternative 2. The addition of passive parks and pocket parks throughout the study area would also add open space acreage to the study area. Nevertheless, a deficiency in neighborhood and community park acreage could remain as well as a deficiency in fields, courts, and trails. Ballfield and sport court LOS standards are applied citywide; thus a lack of such facilities within the Planned Action Study Area or the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea does not indicate an LOS deficiency.
With Alternative 3, portions of Harrington Avenue NE right-of-way within the subarea would be converted to 0.25 acres of passive open space. A multi-generational center, and, potentially, a library would be constructed in the subarea southeast of the Harrington Avenue NE/Glenwood Avenue NE intersection and adjacent to the new passive open space along Harrington As part of the overall Planned Action Study Area, the subarea would be underserved according to results when applying the City’s parks and recreation LOS standards.. Under Alternative 3, NE Sunset Boulevard would be improved to include bike lanes, intersection improvements, and sidewalks, providing a more walkable corridor and more direct access between residential areas and park land.
Although there is an increase in community park acreage with the relocation of Sunset Court Park to Sunset Terrace and addition of a new multiuse trail (4,500 feet) along the western side of NE Sunset Boulevard, there would continue to be a deficiency in neighborhood and community park acreage in the Planned Action Study Area and a deficiency in fields, courts, and trails. However, the deficiencies would be less than for Alternative 3, which has a similar population but less proposed park facilities. Ballfield and sport court LOS standards are applied citywide; thus a lack of such facilities within the Planned Action Study Area or the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea does not indicate an LOS deficiency.
Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3. However, under the Preferred Alternative, Sunset Court Park would be relocated to the Sunset Terrace Subarea. Additionally, this park would be expanded from 0.5 acre to 2.65 acres. This increases the acreage in neighborhood park land for this subarea and the Planned Action Study Area.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-37 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
Indirect Indirect impacts are expected to mostly fall on the City’s regional and communitywide parks and recreation facilities. For example, as the population increases in the Planned Action Study Area, there will be a growing deficiency of Neighborhood and Community Parks. Due to proximity, those demands would likely be displaced to nearby regional facilities such as Gene Coulon Park as well as in surrounding communities.
Facility deficiencies in this subarea would also likely lead to spillover demand for active playfields for team sports in other parts of Renton as well as in surrounding communities.
Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
Cumulative Increased demands for park and recreation facilities and services generated by the forecast population growth under each of the alternatives would add to those created by general population growth throughout the Renton community.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
4.16 Public Services
Construction
Police The Renton Police Department could experience an increase in calls for service related to construction site theft, vandalism, or trespassing relating to construction.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1, but would be more likely to occur with the greater amount of construction.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1, but the potential for impacts would be highest, because this alternative has the greatest amount of construction.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Construction-related impacts would be similar to those described for other alternatives and would fall within the range of Alternatives 2 to 3.
Same as Planned Action Study Area
Fire and Emergency Medical Services Construction impacts on fire protection and emergency medical services could include increased calls for service related to inspection of construction sites and potential construction-related injuries.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Impacts on response time under would be the same as Alternative 1, except that the larger increase in population and construction would mean higher response times.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Impacts on response time would be the same as Alternative 1, but higher than the other alternatives.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Construction impacts on response time would fall within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3, comparable to the relative amount of growth anticipated.
Same as Planned Action Study Area
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-38 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
Education McKnight Middle School would be improved to add 10 classrooms, which would translate to capacity for approximately 290 more middle school students. The expansion of McKnight Middle School is not expected to disrupt student attendance at the campus.
No impact Under Alternative 2, the McKnight Middle School expansion and reconfiguration and expansion of the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center would occur. Similar to Alternative 1, the expansion of McKnight Middle School is not expected to disrupt student attendance at the campus. The Early Education program at the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center would likely be moved, at least temporarily, as part of the reconfiguration of that facility.
No impact Under the Alternative 3, the McKnight Middle School expansion would occur similar to other alternatives. In addition, changes would occur at the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center, similar to Alternative 2, only the reconfigured Hillcrest Early Childhood Center would be part of a family village concept that would include recreation and housing. Similar to other alternatives, the expansion of McKnight Middle School is not expected to disrupt student attendance at the campus.
No impact Same as Alternative 3 No impact
Health Care No changes expected. No changes expected. There may be temporary changes to nonmotorized and motorized access to health care services during infrastructure construction (e.g., NE Sunset Boulevard), but alternative routes would be established.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2
Social Services No changes expected. No changes expected. There may be temporary changes to nonmotorized and motorized access to social services during infrastructure construction (e.g., NE Sunset Boulevard), but alternative routes would be established. Construction at the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center as the center is expanded may require relocation of the Friendly Kitchen weekly meal program that meets at that site.
Redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace housing development would displace the existing on-site community meeting space that is currently used for on-site social service programs. However, the space would be replaced on site or nearby with a larger and more modern facility, and with appropriate phasing of development, disruption to on-site social service programs can be minimized or avoided.
Construction at the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center as part of the family village redevelopment, would require relocation of the Friendly Kitchen weekly meal program that meets at that site. The Friendly Kitchen program would either be relocated permanently as a part of the redevelopment or may be accommodated as part of the range of social services provided at the family village.
Similar to Alternative 2, redevelopment of this subarea would displace the existing on-site community meeting space that is currently used for on-site social service programs. However, the space would be replaced on site or nearby with a larger and more modern facility, and with appropriate phasing of development, disruption to on-site social service programs can be minimized or avoided.
Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, improvements to streetscapes, including sidewalks, nonmotorized facilities, and transit shelters in the Planned Action Study Area would include similar temporary disruption to accessibility of social services.
Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, redevelopment of the subarea would displace the existing on-site community meeting space that is currently used for on-site social service programs. However, as with the other alternatives, the space would be replaced on site or nearby with a larger and more modern facility.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-39 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
Solid Waste Alternative 1 provides the lowest level of development activity and the lowest level of construction-related waste generation of all alternatives being considered.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Alternative 2 provides for a higher level of redevelopment and civic investment than Alternative 1, but less than Alternative 3, resulting in construction-related waste generation within the range of alternatives being considered.
Alternative 2 provides for redevelopment of the subarea, generating more construction-related waste than Alternative 1, and a similar level of construction-related waste as Alternative 3.
Alternative 3 provides for a highest level of redevelopment and civic investment of all alternatives considered, resulting in higher levels of construction-related waste generation.
The redevelopment of the subarea anticipated under Alternative 3 would generate more construction-related waste than the No Action Alternative, and a similar level of construction-related waste as Alternative 2.
The Preferred Alternative provides for an amount of redevelopment and civic investment falling within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3, resulting in levels of construction-related waste generation falling within the range of those alternatives.
The Preferred Alternative would generate a similar amount of construction-related waste as Alternatives 2 and 3 in which the entire subarea is redeveloped.
Library When the library is relocated, library services may be temporarily unavailable in the study area, but services would be available at other branches.
Same as Planned Action Study AreaSame as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
Operations
Police Applying the Renton Police Department staffing per population standard to the anticipated population increase would result in a need for an estimated 5.5 additional police officers to address increase in service calls related to growth.
Applying the Renton Police Department standard to the anticipated population increase (approximately 404) would account for 0.6 of the approximately 5.5 additional police officers to address population growth study area.
Applying the Renton Police Department standard to the anticipated population increase would result in a need for approximately 6.1 additional police officers.
Applying the Renton Police Department standard to the anticipated population increase (approximately 716) would account for 1.1 of the approximately 6.1 additional police officers estimated to address population growth in the study area.
Applying the Renton Police Department standard to the anticipated population increase (approximately 5,789) would result in a need for approximately 9.3 additional police officers, between 3.1 and 3.8 officers more than estimated for the other alternatives considered.
Applying the Renton Police Department standard to the anticipated population increase (approximately 1,106) would account for 1.8 of the approximately 9.3 additional police officers estimated to address population growth in the study area.
Population in the Planned Action Study Area would increase by approximately 5,403 compared to existing conditions, resulting in a need for approximately 8.6 additional police officers when applying the Renton Police Department standard. This increase in police service need and increase in response time resulting from traffic congestion would fall within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3.
Under the Preferred Alternative, population in the subarea would grow by approximately 614 compared to existing conditions. Applying the Renton Police Department standard to this population increase would account for 1.0 of the approximately 8.6 additional police officers described under the Planned Action Study Area above, falling within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Applying the fire service’s staffing ratio to growth in the study area would result in the need for an additional 0.8 firefighter full-time equivalents (FTEs) compared to existing conditions to maintain the City’s existing staffing ratio.
Applying the fire service’s staffing ratio to growth in the study area to the population growth of 404 people in this subarea would result in the need for less than 0.1 of the 0.8 firefighter FTE needed in the overall Planned Action Study Area to maintain the City’s existing staffing ratio.
Applying the fire service’s staffing ratio to growth under Alternative 2 would result in the need for an additional 0.9 of a firefighter FTEs compared to existing conditions, only 0.1 FTE more than Alternative 1.
Applying the fire service’s staffing ratio to growth of 716 people in the subarea would account for less than 0.2 of the 0.9 firefighter FTE needed in the overall study area to maintain the City’s existing staffing ratio.
Applying the fire service’s staffing ratio to growth under Alternative 3 would result in the need for an additional 1.3 firefighter FTEs compared to existing conditions, approximately 0.5 FTE more than Alternative 1.
Applying the fire service’s staffing ratio to population growth of 1,047 people in the subarea would account for slightly more than 0.2 of the 1.3 firefighter FTEs needed in the overall study area to maintain the City’s existing staffing ratio.
Applying the fire service’s staffing ratio to growth under the Preferred Alternative results in the need for an additional 1.2 firefighter FTEs, slightly less than Alternative 3.
Applying the fire service’s staffing ratio to the Preferred Alternative’s population growth in the subarea would account for 0.14 of the 1.2 firefighter FTEs needed in the overall Planned Action Study Area, falling within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2.
Education Population growth would result in an increase in It is possible that reconfiguration of Population growth would result in an increase of Population growth would result in an increase of Population growth would result in an increase of Population growth would result in the largest Population growth under the Preferred Alternative Population growth in the subarea under the
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-40 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea approximately 339 students in the Renton School District compared to existing conditions. The district’s planned opening of Honey Dew Elementary, as well as construction of additions to McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School, would accommodate this increase in student population. Based on demographic trends described in Section 3.9, new students within the study area would include a higher than average number of students speaking English as a second language, increasing demands on the district’s English Language Learners Program.
elementary school boundaries resulting from opening Honey Dew Elementary would alter where students in the subarea attend elementary school. However, opening Honey Dew Elementary would also alleviate short-term overcrowding in area elementary schools.
approximately 377 students attending area Renton School District schools compared to existing conditions. This increase would be accommodated by the district’s planned capital improvements at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. The demand for additional English Language Learner Program space would fall within the range of the two other alternatives being considered.
approximately 69 subarea students attending area Renton School District schools compared to existing conditions. This increase falls within the range of other alternatives considered. It is anticipated that this increase in student population would be accommodated by the district’s planned capital improvements at the elementary, middle, and high school levels.
approximately 567 students attending area Renton School District schools compared to existing conditions. This is the largest increase of all the alternatives considered. Approximately half of the new students would be elementary age students. Alternative 3 would also include the largest demand on additional English Language Learner Program space of the three alternatives considered.
anticipated increase in student population in the subarea of all alternatives, approximately 107 additional students compared to existing conditions. It is anticipated that this additional increment of students would be accommodated by the district’s planned capital improvements, including opening Honey Dew Elementary, expansion of McKnight Middle School, and redeveloping the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center which would provide additional student capacity in addition to early education programs that currently exist on the site.
would result in an increase of approximately 526 students attending Renton School District schools compared to existing conditions. This falls within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3. Growth in student population would have a similar, but lesser impact on English Language Learners Program space as Alternative 3.
Preferred Alternative would result in increases in student population in the subarea and demand on the Renton School District’s English Language Learners program within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. Approximately 60 additional students would be located in the subarea compared to existing conditions.
Health Care Increase in study area population would increase the need for hospital beds in the Valley Medical Center (VMC) service area by approximately 2.6 beds, based on the current ratio of hospital beds to district service area population. Additional population growth may also result in increased demand at VMC’s nearby primary care and urgent care clinics.
Based VMC’s existing ratio of hospital beds to district population, the anticipated population increase would result in a small increase of approximately 0.3 hospital bed in this subarea of the 2.6 beds anticipated in the study area. This smaller increase would result in the smallest demand for additional service at VMC’s nearby primary care and urgent care clinics.
Alternative 2 population increases within the study area would result in the need for approximately 2.9 hospital beds, only a fraction more than under Alternative 1. Additional population growth would also result in slightly increased demand at VMC’s nearby primary care and urgent care clinics compared to Alternative 1, and less demand than under Alternative 3.
The increase in population would result in a minor increase in hospital bed demand and demand for service at nearby VMC primary care and urgent care clinics compared to Alternative 1. Demand for hospital beds increases by 0.5 bed over existing conditions.
Population growth is greatest under the Alternative 3, resulting in the need for an estimated 4.4 additional hospital beds based on the existing number of hospital beds per district population. Although this represents the greatest increase of all the alternatives, this increase in hospital beds is minimal and not expected to result in impacts on VMC.
The increase in population would result in a small increase in hospital bed demand and demand for service at nearby VMC primary care and urgent care clinics compared to other alternatives. Demand for hospital beds increases by 0.8 bed over existing conditions, a less than significant impact on provision of health care.
Population growth under the Preferred Alternative falls within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3, resulting in the need for an estimated 4.1 additional hospital beds based on the existing hospital beds per district population ratio. This represents an increase of beds within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3. Similarly, the additional population growth considered under the Preferred Alternative would result in an increased demand at VMC’s nearby primary care and urgent care clinics that falls within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3.
Under the Preferred Alternative, the increase in subarea population would result in an increase in hospital bed demand and demand for service at nearby VMC primary care and urgent care clinics that falls within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. Demand for hospital beds in the subarea would increase by 0.5-bed over existing conditions, a less-than-significant impact on health-care service.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-41 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Social Services Population increases within the study area are anticipated to result in higher demand for social services provided within the study area, as well as those provided in the larger community.
The subarea’s new affordable housing development for seniors would include enriched senior services on site, including elder day-health for off-site patients in a 12,500-square-foot space on the northeastern vacant RHA parcel. The increased population of affordable housing and, in particular, affordable senior housing would increase the demand for social services, including senior services accessible to the subarea.
There are anticipated to be no changes to existing social service programs or facilities within the study area outside of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Population increases in the study area are anticipated to result in demand for social services falling within the range of other alternatives considered.
Approximately 26,000 square feet of space in the central part of the subarea could be used for a variety of community services, including social services and community meeting spaces. Elder day-health services would be similar to Alternative 1.
Alternative 3 includes major public investments that include redevelopment opportunities, which could expand upon or enhance social services in the study area. Among the key components of Alternative 3 outside of Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea is development of a family village in the North Subarea.
Redevelopment plans for the subarea, under Alternative 3, include the largest amount of space that could be devoted to community or social services. The approximately 42,500 square feet of space devoted to these uses is slightly larger than the combined social service/community space and enriched senior services described in Alternative 2.
Among the key components of the Preferred Alternative outside of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment, is development of a family village in the North Subarea. The benefits and impacts on social services of development of the family village concept under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those described under Alternative 3.
Overall, the amount of space that could be devoted to community or social services within the subarea would fall within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2, but additional community space anticipated in Alternative 3, such as the family village, would be located outside but nearby the subarea.
Solid Waste Solid waste generation is expected to increase by around 82,500 pounds per week compared to existing conditions. A portion of this waste stream would be diverted to recyclables as planned under the Draft
2009 Comprehensive Solid
Waste Management Plan (King County 2009).
Solid waste generation from the subarea would increase by about 9,700 pounds per week compared to existing conditions.
Solid waste generation would increase by around 92,000 pounds per week compared to existing conditions, approximately 9,500 pounds per week more than Alternative 1 and around 47,000 fewer pounds per week less than Alternative 3. As with other alternatives, a percentage of waste generated would be diverted to recycling.
Solid waste generation would increase by around 17,200 pounds per week compared to existing conditions, an amount that falls within the range of waste generation estimates for other alternatives considered. Similar to other alternatives, a portion of the increase in waste stream would be diverted to recyclables.
Solid waste generation would increase by around 139,000 pounds per week compared to existing conditions, between 47,000 more pounds per week than Alternative and 56,500 more than Alternative 1. As with other alternatives, a percentage of the waste would be diverted to recycling.
Solid waste generation would increase by around 26,500 pounds per week compared to existing conditions, 9,400 pounds per week more than Alternative 2 and 16,800 more than Alternative 1. As with other alternatives, a percentage of this waste would be diverted to recycling.
Solid waste generation under the Preferred Alternative would increase by around 129,689 pounds of waste per week compared to existing conditions, approximately 9,300 fewer pounds per week than Alternative 3. As with other alternatives, a percentage of the waste would be diverted to recycling.
Solid waste generation under the Preferred Alternative would increase by around 14,750 pounds per week, falling within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. As with other alternatives, a percentage of this waste would be diverted to recycling.
Library Services Anticipated growth would create a demand for an additional 1,235 square feet of library space compared to existing conditions.
Anticipated growth in the subarea would account for approximately 145 square feet of library facilities to meet the growth in demand.
Anticipated growth would create a demand for an additional 1,375 square feet of library space compared to existing conditions.
Space for library or other community services is available in the proposed Alternative 2 conceptual plan (See Chapter 2, Figure 2-9). Growth in the subarea would account for approximately257 square feet of additional library facility space compared to existing conditions, falling within the range of other alternatives considered.
Anticipated growth would create a demand for an additional 2,079 square feet of library space compared to existing conditions.
Space for library or other community services is available in the proposed Alternative 3 conceptual plan (See Chapter 2, Figure 2-10). Growth in population in the subarea would account for approximately 397 square feet of additional library facility space compared to existing conditions.
Growth anticipated under the Preferred Alternative would create a demand for an additional 1,940 square feet of library space compared to existing conditions. This is slightly less than the demand for library space under Alternative 3.
Growth in population in the subarea would account for approximately 221 square feet of additional library facility space compared to existing conditions, falling within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-42 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
Indirect and
Cumulative
All alternatives increase growth above existing conditions and would add to a citywide increase in demand for public services; however, the alternatives are accommodating an increment of growth already anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan at a citywide level. Alternative 1 is most consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan growth levels to the year 2022.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Alternative 1, except that Alternative 2 represents an increase in planned growth more similar to the year 2031 growth allocations that the City will address in its 2014 Comprehensive Plan update.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Alternative 2 though at a greater growth level Same as Alternative 2 though at a greater growth level Same as Alternative 3 Same as Alternative 3
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-43 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 4.17 Utilities
Construction Where new construction occurs, it is anticipated that existing telecommunication lines would be removed, replaced, or abandoned in place. Redevelopment would require coordination with service providers regarding the location of proposed structures, utilities, and site grading. To accommodate the required demand and capacity for water and sewer services for new development and redevelopment in the study area, existing water and sanitary sewer lines would be abandoned in place or removed and replaced with new and larger lines. New and larger water and sewer mains would be installed in existing and/or future dedicated public rights-of-way or within dedicated utility easements to the City, and would connect with the existing distribution network. Existing utility lines would continue to service the site during construction, or temporary bypass service would be implemented until the distribution or collection system is complete and operational.
Same as Planned Action Study Area
Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
Operations
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-44 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
Telecommunications Increased capacity requirements with increased levels of population and commercial activity in each of the alternatives could require new fiber within the Planned Action Study Area and coordination with telecommunication providers as development occurs should be performed so that appropriate facilities can be planned.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
Water The increase in the average daily demand (ADD) is projected to be 0.29 million gallons per day, or 138% of the existing water demand of 0.21 million gallons per day within the Planned Action Study Area. The growth projected for Alternative 1 would increase the storage requirements for the Highlands 435 and the Highlands 565 pressure zones and further increase the existing storage deficit in the Highlands 435 pressure zone. In addition, the development that is projected for the Planned Action Study Area would increase the fire-flow requirements with more multifamily development and commercial development. The capacity of the existing water distribution system to meet these higher fire flows is inadequate if system improvements are not constructed.
The increase in ADD for this subarea is 0.03 million gallons per day (176% of the existing ADD of 0.02 million gallons per day). The increase in the peak daily demand (PDD) for this subarea is 0.06 million gallons per day (176% of existing PDD). The primary impact of subarea development on the water distribution system would be increased fire-flow requirements. Water system pressure in some areas within the Planned Action Study Area may not be adequate for multistory development and/or for development with fire sprinkler systems, unless new water mains are extended from the higher-pressure Highlands 565 pressure zone.
The increase in ADD for Alternative 2 was calculated to be 0.39 million gallons per day, or 184% of the existing water demand of 0.21 million gallons per day within the Planned Action Study Area. Impacts regarding storage and fire flow would be similar to but greater than Alternative 1.
The increase in ADD for this subarea is 0.06 million gallons per day (339%). The increase in the PDD for the subarea is 0.11 million gallons per day (339% of existing load). The primary impact of subarea development on the water distribution system would be increased fire-flow requirements. Impacts regarding storage and fire flow would be similar to but greater than Alternative 1.
With the growth projected for Alternative 3, the increase in the ADD is projected to be 0.59 million gallons per day, or 282% of existing water demand, and the PDD is projected to increase by 1.13 million gallons per day or 282% over the existing PDD. Impacts regarding storage and fire flow would be similar to but greater than Alternatives 1 and 2.
The increase in ADD for this subarea is 0.09 million gallons per day (499%), and the increase in the PDD for this subarea is 0.16 million gallons per day (499%). The primary impact on the water distribution system that development in this subarea has is increased fire-flow requirements. Impacts regarding storage and fire flow would be similar to but greater than Alternatives 1 and 2.
The increase in the ADD is projected to be 0.56 million gallons per day (267% over existing ADD), and the PDD is projected to increase by 1.07 million gallons per day (267% over existing PDD). The existing booster pump stations that supply the Highlands 435 and 565 pressure zones, in which the Planned Action Study Area is located, have sufficient supply capacity to meet the projected growth in demand. Water system pressure in some areas within the Planned Action Study Area may not be adequate for multistory development and/or for development with fire sprinkler systems, unless new water mains are extended from the higher-pressure Highlands 565 pressure zone.
The increase in ADD f would be 0.05 million gallons per day (270% of existing ADD), and the increase in the PDD for this subarea would be 0.09 million gallons per day (270% of existing PDD). The primary impact of subarea development on the water distribution system would be increased fire-flow requirements. Water system pressure provided by the 435 pressure zone in this subarea is not be adequate for multistory development and/or for development with fire sprinkler systems. New water mains extended from the higher-pressure 565 pressure zone system to service the subarea would need to be phased to accommodate the Preferred Alternative.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-45 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
Wastewater The increase in wastewater load for the Planned Action Study Area is 0.31 million gallons per day or an increase of 90%. The increased wastewater load with the growth planned under Alternative 1 could increase current surcharging of the local sewers within the Planned Action Study Area.
The increase in wastewater flow in this subarea is 0.04 million gallons per day (170% of existing load). Similar to the Planned Action Study Area, no impacts on the interceptors that provide conveyance from the subarea are expected, but the increased sewer load could impact local sewers within the subarea. The increased wastewater load under Alternative 1 could increase current surcharging of the local sewers within the subarea.
The increase in wastewater load for the Planned Action Study Area is 0.70 42 million gallons per day or 115119% of existing load. Impacts regarding wastewater facilities would be similar to but greater than Alternative 1; the increased wastewater load with the growth planned under Alternative 2 could increase current surcharging of the local sewers within the study area.
The increase in wastewater load in this subarea is 0.40 .07 million gallons per day (311% of existing load). Similar to the Planned Action Study Area evaluation of wastewater conveyance capacity, no impacts on the interceptors that provide conveyance from the subarea are expected, but the increased wastewater load could impact local sewers within the subarea and increase current surcharging of the local sewers within the subarea. Impacts regarding wastewater facilities would be similar to but greater than Alternative 1.
The increase in wastewater load for the Planned Action Study Area is 0.57 63 million gallons per day or 193181% of existing load. This increase in wastewater flow is not expected to affect the wastewater interceptors that provide conveyance of wastewater from the Planned Action Study Area; the increased wastewater load with the growth planned under Alternative 3 could increase current surcharging of the local sewers within the study area. Impacts regarding wastewater facilities would be similar to but greater than Alternatives 1 and 2.
The increase in wastewater flow load in this subarea is 0.10 million gallons per day (469%). Similar to the Planned Action Study Area, no impacts on the interceptors that provide conveyance from this subarea are expected, but the increased sewer load could impact local sewers within this subarea and increase current surcharging of the local sewers within the subarea. Impacts regarding wastewater facilities would be similar to but greater than Alternatives 1 and 2.
The increase in wastewater load under the Preferred Alternative for the Planned Action Study Area is 0.59 million gallons per day (170% of existing load). This increase is not expected to affect the wastewater interceptors that provide conveyance of wastewater from the Planned Action Study Area, but it could increase surcharging that is observed within the Planned Action Study Area.
Under the Preferred Alternative, the increase in wastewater load in this subarea is 0.05 million gallons per day (256% of existing load). This increase would have no impact on the interceptors that provide conveyance from this subarea, but it could affect local sewers within the subarea and increase current surcharging of the local sewers within the subarea.
Indirect and
Cumulative Demands on utilities would increase as a result of cumulative development. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated as long as the replacement of water and sewer infrastructure is properly planned, designed, and constructed, and funding strategies are identified and approved by City Council.
Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1
*Numbering of resource areas is based on the resource analysis section numbering from the Draft EIS. Resource section numbering for analysis of the Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS differs.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-47 April 2011
ICF 593.10
1.6 Summary of Mitigation Measures Table 1-2 provides a summary of mitigation measures proposed in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS or Chapter 3 of the Final EIS to reduce identified impacts. These measures are in addition to applicable federal, state, and local regulations and commitments that are described in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS. Unless otherwise stated, the mitigation measures apply to all studied alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-49 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Table 1-2. Mitigation Measures Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 4.1 Earth The following mitigation measures would apply to development throughout the Planned Action Study Area.
Apply erosion-control best management practices (BMPs), as described in Appendix D of the City of Renton
Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual (City of Renton 2010a).
Limit development in geologic hazard areas and their buffers, or require rigorous engineered design to reduce the hazard, as currently codified. Also, the City could promote earth material reuse by establishing websites or other community information exchanges to track material needs and surpluses. Vacant City-owned property could be designated as temporary stockpile sites for quality structural fill.
Mitigating measures for the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would be similar to those for the Planned Action Study Area, except that there are no geologic hazard areas to avoid. Material reuse between construction zones within the subarea would be easier and more economical to control than in the larger, privately owned study area.
4.2 Air Quality Construction Emission Control The City should require all construction contractors to implement air quality control plans for construction activities in the study area. The air quality control plans should include BMPs to control fugitive dust and odors emitted by diesel construction equipment. The following BMPs will be used to control fugitive dust.
Use water sprays or other non-toxic dust control methods on unpaved roadways.
Minimize vehicle speed while traveling on unpaved surfaces.
Prevent trackout of mud onto public streets.
Cover soil piles when practical.
Minimize work during periods of high winds when practical. The following mitigation measures will be used to minimize air quality and odor issues caused by tailpipe emissions.
Maintain the engines of construction equipment according to manufacturers’ specifications.
Minimize idling of equipment while the equipment is not in use. If there is heavy traffic during some periods of the day, scheduling haul traffic during off-peak times (e.g., between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.) would have the least effect on traffic and would minimize indirect increases in traffic related emissions. Burning of slash or demolition debris will not be permitted without express approval from Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA). No slash burning is anticipated for any construction projects in the Planned Action Study Area.
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Neither the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) nor the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is likely to adopt numerical greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards, GHG reduction requirements, or numerical GHG significance thresholds in the near future. It is the City’s responsibility to implement its GHG reduction requirements for new developments. To ensure transit-oriented development measures are incorporated into new development and to offer single-purpose uses opportunities to reduce emissions, the City could require or encourage future developers to implement additional trip reduction measures and energy conservation measures that could provide even better GHG reduction. GHG emissions reductions could be provided by using prudent building design and construction methods to use recycled construction materials, reduce space heating and electricity usage, and reduce water consumption and waste generation. Draft EIS Table 4.2-8 lists a variety of mitigation measures that could reduce GHG emissions caused by transportation facilities, building construction, space heating, and electricity usage (Washington State Department of Ecology 2008). The table lists potential GHG reduction measures and indicates where the emission reductions might occur.
In addition to the mMitigation measures for air quality applied to the subarea are the same as described under the Planned Action Study Area., the following applies:
Should the phases of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea occur concurrently rather than in a phased and sequential manner, the City and RHA will consider adding the Northeast Diesel Collaborative Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects – Model Contract Specifications as additional mitigation measures. In addition, the City and RHA could explore measures to improve indoor air quality beyond what is normally achieved by simply complying with building codes. For example, grant programs such as the Breath Easy Homes program could provide funding to foster construction methods that reduce dust, mold, and air toxics concentrations in the homes, such as the following:
use of low-VOC [volatile organic compounds] building materials and coatings,
enhanced building ventilation and room air filtration, and
installation of dust-free floor materials and low-pile carpeting to reduce dust buildup.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-50 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The City could require development applicants to consider the reduction measures shown in Draft EIS Table 4.2-8 for their projects, and explain why other measures found in the table are not included or are not applicable. The City can incorporate potential GHG reduction measures through its goals, policies, or regulations, including the proposed Planned Action Ordinance. 4.3 Water Resources All of the alternatives would involve redevelopment and reduction of existing pollution-generating impervious surfaces in the Planned Action Study Area. In addition, per the requirements of the stormwater code, the redeveloped properties would be required to provide water quality treatment for all remaining pollution-generating impervious surfaces. The net reduction in untreated pollution-generating impervious surfaces throughout the study area is, therefore, considered to result in a net benefit to surface water quality. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are proposed. Each of the alternatives would result in a slight increase in the effective impervious area of the Planned Action Study Area. Under the No Action Alternative, mitigation for increased impervious area would be provided through implementation of on-site flow control incrementally with the new and redevelopment projects. Under Alternative 2, mitigation would be provided in advance of development through public infrastructure investments in the green connections or would be provided incrementally through the new developments and redevelopment projects. Conceptual design and planning of the green connections would be developed under a drainage master plan for the study area and could be developed in advance of (likely through grants or city funds) or incrementally as development occurs depending on opportunity costs of constructing the green connections in conjunction with additional improvements (e.g., frontage improvements associated with redevelopment, roadway or pedestrian improvements, utility infrastructure improvements). The extent and form of the green connections would be refined through the drainage master plan development and further design. At such a time as the green connections and other associated decreases in effective impervious area due to redevelopment of highly impervious parcels occur, mitigation responsibility would shift back to individual projects to provide on-site flow control, or additional public investment could be directed to restoring the mitigation. The total amount of impervious surface mitigated would increase as redevelopment occurs in the Planned Action Study Area. Under Alternative 3, mitigation would be provided in advance or incrementally through the self-mitigating public stormwater infrastructure features including a combination of green connections, regional stormwater flow control, and possible public-private partnership opportunities for retrofits. Similar to Alternative 2, conceptual design and planning of the public stormwater infrastructure would be developed under a drainage master plan for the Study Area. It could be developed in advance of (likely through grants or city funds) or incrementally as development occurs depending on opportunity costs of constructing the improvements. The extent and form of the public infrastructure projects would be refined through the drainage master plan development and further design. However, as opposed to Alternative 2, the goal under Alternative 3 would be to provide sufficient advance public infrastructure improvements to balance the anticipated increase in effective impervious area. This strategy would only require that future developments implement flow-control BMPs, but could eliminate on-site flow control through a development fee or similar funding structure to compensate for the off-site mitigation provided by the public infrastructure investment. Similar to Alternative 2, the total mitigated impervious surface mitigated would increase as redevelopment occurs in the study area. Since more redevelopment is expected under this alternative, more impervious surface will be mitigated compared to Alternative 2. The Preferred Alternative mitigation would be similar to Alternative 3. Harrington Avenue NE, including portions of NE 16th and NE 9th streets, has been identified as a high priority Green Connection project. This corridor would be enhanced by narrowing through-traffic lanes to calm traffic, create wide planter areas to accommodate large trees and rain gardens to mitigate stormwater runoff, and create wider sidewalks. This project would be implemented as a public infrastructure retrofit project pending available funds. The remaining green connections projects would likely be implemented as revised roadway standards to require incremental redevelopment of the frontage as redevelopment occurs (constructed either by future developers or the City, depending on availability of funds). In addition to the Green Connections projects, the City would implement regional detention/retention improvements to provide advance mitigation for future increases in impervious area that could result from redevelopment. Locations of the regional facilities would include the western margin of the newly created park at Sunset Terrace and/or the northern corner of Highlands Park (beyond the outfield of the existing baseball/softball field). A drainage master plan will be developed for the Preferred Alternative. If grant funding or City funding is not obtained to implement the green connections or regional stormwater flow control
No additional mitigation measures are proposed for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. The improvements under the action alternatives are anticipated to improve the quality of runoff and recharge water. Although Alternative 2 would result in a slight increase in net effective impervious area, the increase in effective impervious area would be mitigated by the additional public stormwater infrastructure improvements (i.e., green connections and NE Sunset Boulevard improvements) provided elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area. The City may require cost-reimbursement from RHA to provide the off-site mitigation or, as a catalyst for economic development, the Sunset Terrace redevelopment may be considered to be exempt from reimbursement. Alternative 3 would result in a reduction in the net effective impervious area through the incorporation of flow-control BMPs such as permeable pavements, rain gardens, and cisterns. The Preferred Alternative would also result in a reduction of the net effective impervious area through green infrastructure. Under the Preferred Alternative, the City proposes to invest in the public stormwater infrastructure by constructing a regional stormwater facility within the subarea (see Final EIS Figure 3.3-2). This facility would be designed to maintain active and open recreation space allowing water to be treated within a series of distributed of small integrated rain gardens along the edge of the proposed Sunset Terrace Park and connecting the subsurface to an underground infiltration bed beneath open space. Should infiltration in this location be determined to be infeasible upon final design, flow control would be provided by an underground detention vault. This facility would be designed to mitigate for the additional 2.6 acres of effective impervious area within the Johns Creek Basin estimated to be added by the combined improvements within the Planned Action Study Area due to the anticipated growth under the Preferred Alternative.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-51 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea facilities needed to provide required mitigation for stormwater quantity and quality impacts associated with the land use changes that would occur under Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative, then the stormwater mitigation will be implemented incrementally with the new and redevelopment projects. 4.4 Plants and Animals With implementation of proposed stormwater features or standards, no mitigation is required. With implementation of proposed stormwater features or standards, no mitigation is required. 4.5 Energy Although the growth and development would result in increased energy demand in the Planned Action Study Area under all of the alternatives, expanding the beneficial transit-oriented development and high-density housing development within the study area would reduce regional energy usage. Therefore, all alternatives would provide a net benefit rather than adverse impact with regards to energy usage. However, to further reduce energy consumption, the City could require or encourage future developers to implement additional trip-reduction measures and energy conservation measures. Energy and GHG reductions can be achieved through implementation of the following energy conservation techniques or equivalent approaches.
An energy reduction of 12% can be achieved by implementing sufficient strategies established by the Northwest Energy Star Homes program for multifamily residential buildings. The Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes program (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010) is designed to help builders construct energy-efficient homes in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana to meet energy-efficiency guidelines set forth by the EPA.
An energy reduction of 10% would comply with Seattle Energy Code for non-residential buildings. See also Draft EIS Section 4.2.
In addition to the mitigation measures described for the Planned Action Study Area, according to the King County proposed GHG reduction regulation, energy reductions can be provided with the implementation of the following basic requirements of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Advanced Buildings Core
Performance Guide for residential and non-residential building in the subarea:
30% energy reduction for residential dwelling that are 50% of average size; and 15% energy reduction for residential dwelling that are 75% of average size; and
12% energy reduction for office, school, retail, and public assembly buildings that are smaller than 100,000 square feet in floor area.
4.6 Noise Construction Noise To reduce construction noise at nearby receivers, the following mitigation measures will be incorporated into construction plans and contractor specifications.
Locate stationary equipment away from receiving properties.
Erect portable noise barriers around loud stationary equipment located near sensitive receivers.
Limit construction activities to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. to avoid sensitive nighttime hours.
Turn off idling construction equipment.
Require contractors to rigorously maintain all equipment.
Train construction crews to avoid unnecessarily loud actions (e.g., dropping bundles of rebar onto the ground or dragging steel plates across pavement) near noise-sensitive areas.
New Commercial Operation Noise The City may require all prospective future developers to use low-noise mechanical equipment adequate to ensure compliance with the City’s daytime and nighttime noise ordinance limits. Depending on the nature of the proposed development, the City may require the developer to conduct a noise impact study to forecast future noise levels and to specify appropriate noise control measures. Compliance with the noise ordinance would ensure this potential impact would not be significant.
Traffic Noise Mitigation Although traffic noise is exempt from City noise ordinance, based on site-specific considerations, the City may at its discretion require the new development to install double-pane glass windows or other building insulation measures using its authority under the Washington State Energy Code (RMC 4-5-040).
Mitigation measures described in the Planned Action Study Area would also apply to this subarea. In addition, outdoor noise levels at the residential dwellings abutting NE Sunset Boulevard are expected to exceed HUD’s noise criterion of 65 dBA Ldn under all alternatives. Therefore, mitigation measures determined feasible will be required to reduce traffic noise from NE Sunset Boulevard so that day-night sound levels at outdoor use locations and inside residences in the subarea would be within the levels considered “acceptable” by HUD or would otherwise meet HUD requirements for attenuation. The following options of mitigation measures were considered for the subarea:
Noise barriers could be designed to reduce traffic noise from NE Sunset Boulevard at residences west of Harrington Avenue NE. However, the noise barrier would create conflicts with the project goals and objectives as described in the Chapter 2, with security and maintenance of the site, and with other environmental values (i.e., aesthetics). Because of these numerous conflicts, it is appropriate to consider balancing achievement of the noise criterion with other planning, environmental and social goals, as permitted by HUD’s noise rules (24 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 51.105). Furthermore, such barriers would not reduce noise levels at the upper level dwellings in these buildings, so traffic noise levels would still exceed the HUD acceptability criterion at these residences. Noise barriers would not be feasible for mixed-use buildings and the community service building planned at the intersection of Harrington Avenue NE and NE Sunset Boulevard and the portion east of Harrington Avenue NE, because the barriers would restrict access to these buildings and conflict with the project goals and objectives..
For the affected upper level residential units and locations where noise barriers are not feasible, acoustical construction techniques and materials should be incorporated into building designs to reduce noise impacts for interior uses. To meet the HUD interior noise criterion of 45 dBA Ldn for residential uses, it will be necessary to provide 23 to 26 dBA of reduction in projected exterior noise levels to achieve 45 dBA Ldn in the interior. Normal construction materials and techniques can provide between about 15 and 25 dBA reductions in exterior to interior sound levels if there are no openings like windows, doors, or ventilation ports on the noise-affected sides of the buildings; however, more detailed review of construction techniques using HUD’s noise guidance in Final EIS Appendix E shows additional reductions may be achieved by normal construction. Open windows reduce the sound-blocking properties of a wall by at least 50%. Thus, it will be necessary to employ special designs, materials, and construction techniques to insure that interior noise levels in the residences fronting on NE Sunset Boulevard comply with the HUD suitability criterion. It should be noted that in determining the construction techniques to achieve the interior noise level, a project can proceed without the requirement of sealing the windows provided criteria are met as identified in Final EIS Appendix E.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-52 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Site design approaches that could reduce potential noise impacts include the following.
Park and open space uses are concentrated away from NE Sunset Boulevard. However, a plaza and setback areas remain adjacent to the roadway in some alternatives, though not in the Preferred Alternative. Planned uses of the plaza and setbacks should not include activities that require easily understood conversation (e.g., instructional classes), or other uses where quiet conditions are required for the primary function of the activity.
The City and RHA could allow for balconies on exterior facing units only if they do not open to a bedroom.
The City and RHA could reorient publicly funded residential dwellings to locations away from NE Sunset Boulevard. However, care would be needed to ensure that site design measures do not concentrate low-income residents into one area of the site. The City could consider the exception at 24 CFR 51.105 to approve raising the allowable exterior noise threshold from 65dB to 70dB. This is allowed for proposals that meet goals such as providing housing in proximity to employment, public facilities, and transportation and that maintain the character of the neighborhood. According to the HUD noise guidebook, noise attenuation from various building materials are calculated using sound transmission class (STC) rating. Although the standard construction approaches can normally achieve the STC rating of more than 24 dBA as demonstrated in Final EIS Appendix E, the RHA should require an STC rating of 30 dBA reduction for these first row residential dwellings because the HUD noise guidebook shows that the sound reduction achieved by different techniques may be a little optimistic 4
4.7 Environmental Health . A performance standard of 30 dBA reduction is added as a mitigation measure for all action alternatives including the Preferred Alternative.
The following general mitigation measures would minimize or eliminate construction impacts within the Planned Action Study Area.
Since encountering unreported spills or unreported underground fuel tanks is a risk when performing construction, contractors will be required to provide hazardous materials awareness training to all grading and excavation crews on how to identify any suspected contaminated soil or groundwater, and how to alert supervisors in the event of suspected contaminated material. Signs of potential contaminated soil include stained soil, odors, oily sheen, or the presence of debris.
Contractors will be required to implement a contingency plan to identify, segregate, and dispose of hazardous waste in full accordance with the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA)(WAC 173-340) and the Dangerous Waste (WAC 173-303) regulations.
Contractors will be required to develop and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, BMPs, and other permit conditions to minimize the potential for a release of hazardous materials to soil, groundwater, or surface water during construction.
Contractors will be required to follow careful construction practices to protect against hazardous materials spills from routine equipment operation during construction; prepare and maintain a current spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan, and have an individual on site designated as an emergency coordinator; and understand and use proper hazardous materials storage and handling procedures and emergency procedures, including proper spill notification and response requirements.
All asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint will be identified in structures prior to demolition activities in accordance with 24 CFR Part 35. If ACM or lead-based paint is identified, appropriately trained and licensed personnel will contain, remove, and properly dispose of the ACM and/or lead-based paint material according to federal and state regulations prior to demolition of the affected area.
If warranted, contractors will conduct additional studies to locate undocumented underground storage tank (USTs) and fuel lines before construction of specific development projects (areas of concern include current and former commercial and residential structures) and will permanently decommission and properly remove USTs from project sites before commencing general construction activities.
Similar construction and operation mitigation measures identified for the Planned Action Study Area would be applicable to the subarea.
4 HUD noise guidebook, Chapter 4, page 33”… use the STC ratings with a bit of caution and remain aware of the possible 2-3 dB overstating that you may get with the STC rating system.”
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-53 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The following general mitigation measure would minimize or eliminate operational impacts within the Planned Action Study Area.
Prior to acquisition of known or potentially contaminated property, the City will require appropriate due diligence be performed to identify the presence and extent of soil or groundwater contamination. This can help to prevent or manage liabilities for any long-term clean-up activities that might be ongoing during project operations. If contamination is discovered, the project proponent will comply with all state and federal regulations for contaminated sites. 4.8 Land Use Under all alternatives, the City will require developers to implement appropriate construction mitigation measures, including but not limited to dust control and construction traffic management. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative, the City will make efforts to minimize property acquisition that affects buildings as part of its refinement of study area streetscape designs while balancing Complete Streets principles. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative, the City will need to amend its Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation and Capital Facilities elements to ensure that planned public investments and their funding sources are accounted for and programmed. There are no other specific mitigation measures required to address identified land use impacts. All alternatives implement the City’s plans and zoning for the study area to varying degrees.
Construction mitigation would be the same as described under the Planned Action Study Area. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative, the City and RHA will coordinate on future Sunset Terrace redevelopment and Planned Action Study Area streetscape improvements to ensure that property acquisition that affects buildings is minimized. The following measures are components of RHA’s conceptual designs for Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative and address land use issues.
Locate the majority of the most intensive non-residential development along or near NE Sunset Boulevard, where possible.
Implement proposed open space and landscape features to offset the proposed intensification of land uses on the site.
Provide new opportunities for public open space area through the proposed street vacation in Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative.
As part of site design, emphasize transitions in density, with less intense densities where abutting lower-intensity zones. 4.9 Socioeconomics Mitigation measures to minimize dust, noise, aesthetics, and transportation impacts during construction are identified in Sections 4.2, 4.6, 4.12, and 4.14, respectively. These measures would address many of the construction-related impacts that could negatively affect the study area businesses. In addition, with the reconstruction of NE Sunset Boulevard or with any of the new development, if access to businesses is affected, the following measures may be included to minimize the impacts.
Provide detour, open for business, and other signage, as appropriate.
Provide business cleaning services on a case-by-case basis, as needed.
Establish promotions or marketing measures to help affected businesses maintain their customer base during construction.
Maintain access, as much as possible, to each business and, if access needs to be limited, coordinate with the affected businesses. No mitigation measures for operation are identified, because operation would result in beneficial impacts. Mitigation measures to address indirect impacts on housing affordability are addressed in Section 4.10.
Mitigation measures would be the same as described for the Planned Action Study Area. Public housing tenants would be provided relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation Act. In addition, mitigation measures could be developed to address the demolition of the Sunset Terrace complex including the phased demolition and reconstruction to minimize the need to relocate all the residents at the same time and/or the new affordable housing development could be constructed prior to demolition to provide opportunities to relocate tenants within the subarea. No mitigation measures for operation are identified, because operation would result in beneficial impacts.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-54 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 4.10 Housing Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-4-030(C) identifies construction hours intended to address noise in sensitive time periods. See Section 4. 6, Noise, regarding other noise mitigation measures for construction periods. When federal funds are being used for a proposal, displaced tenants will be offered relocation assistance in compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended. The City and RHA could apply for federal, state, and local funding programs described in Draft EIS Section 3.10, Housing, to promote new housing opportunities for low and very low-income housing. RHA could establish a local preference for rental assistance. For example, RHA could establish a priority list for Section 8 vouchers for displaced low-income tenants in the Planned Action Study Area (in addition to the relocation assistance to be provided by RHA to the Sunset Terrace residents). Under Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative, unit replacement and relocation assistance for the family village would be the same as described for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.
Construction mitigation would be as described for the Planned Action Study Area. For Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative, RHA has committed to replacement housing for the Sunset Terrace public housing units at a 1:1 ratio, consistent with the existing proportion of units by number of bedrooms. Such replacement housing could occur on site and/or off site. During the time replacement housing is under construction, Section 8 vouchers would be used to relocate tenants. Relocation assistance would only be needed for two units in association with Alternative 1.
4.11 Environmental Justice There are no specific mitigation measures related to environmental justice during construction or operation. During construction, mitigation measures related to noise, dust, traffic congestion, and visual quality would be applicable to all populations. These measures are described in Sections 4.2, 4.6, 4.12, and 4.14, respectively. Since the implementation of a Planned Action, under the action alternatives, is anticipated to result in beneficial effects on all populations, no mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation measures during construction would include the need for replacement housing for the residents of Sunset Terrace. It is likely that the tenants would be relocated under a potential Section 8 voucher strategy during construction. Additional information on the likely sequence of events implemented for the relocation of the Sunset Terrace tenants is provided in Section 4.9, Socioeconomics. Mitigation measures during operation would not be required as the build alternatives would result in positive and beneficial impacts on all populations including minority and low-income populations through improvements in housing, civic amenities, and economic climate. 4.12 Aesthetics In both the Planned Action Study Area and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, mitigation measures will be necessary to minimize impacts associated with increased height, bulk, and shading. Future development occurring under any of the alternatives should conform to the Renton Municipal Code design standards (key sections are cited in Draft EIS Section 4.12.2.1). As described in RMC 4-3-100B3, portions of the Planned Action Study Area do not currently lie within an established Urban Design District, most notably those properties north of NE 16th Street and west of Kirkland Avenue NE, where the family village proposed under Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative would be located. To ensure that future redevelopment exhibits quality urban design, the City should consider either including this area in Design District D or creating a new design district for this purpose.
See Planned Action Study Area.
4.13 Historic and Cultural Resources The following mitigation measures are recommended for all future development projects in the Planned Action Study Area.
In the event that a proposed development site within the study area contains a building at least 50-years of age that is not listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or Washington Heritage Register (WHR), the project would be required to undergo review to determine if the property is considered eligible for listing.
It is recommended that the City adopt a historic preservation ordinance that considers the identification and treatment of historic resources listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP or WHR, or locally designated. Until such time an ordinance is adopted, the City must enter into consultation with DAHP regarding potential impacts on historic resources in the study area that are listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP or WHR.
For future projects that involve significant excavation in the study area the City must enter into consultation with Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) to determine the likelihood of and recommendations for addressing potential archaeological resources. It may be necessary to complete archaeological testing prior to significant excavation in the study area, such as digging for footings or utilities. Archaeological
Since no native “A” horizon was identified at the Edmonds-Glenwood site and throughout the Sunset Terrace public housing complex, no further archaeological investigations are recommended for these areas. Although a buried, native “A” horizon was identified on RHA’s Piha site (east of Harrington Avenue NE), the potential for an archaeological discovery is very low. The project should proceed with no further archaeological investigations. If archaeological materials are discovered during ground disturbing excavations, it is recommended that the contractor halts excavations in the vicinity of the find and contact DAHP. For additional information, see Draft EIS Section 4.13. If human skeletal remains are discovered, the King County Sheriff and DAHP should be notified immediately. If or if during excavation archaeological materials are uncovered, the proponent will immediately stop work and notify the City, DAHP, and affected Indian tribes, agencies as outlined in the Unanticipated Discovery Plan provided in Draft EIS Appendix J and as amended in Final EIS Chapter 4. If the project would disturb an archaeological resource, the City will impose any and all measures to avoid or substantially lessen the impact. If avoidance of the archaeological resource is not possible, an appropriate research design must be developed and implemented with full data recovery of the archaeological resource prior to the development project. The avoidance of archaeological resources through selection of project alternatives and changes in design of project features in the specific area of the affected resource(s) would eliminate the need for measuring or mitigating impacts.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-55 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea project monitoring may be recommended for subsurface excavation and construction in high probability areas.
In the event that a future development project in the study area is proposed on or immediately surrounding a site containing an archaeological resource, the potential impacts on the archaeological resource must be considered and, if needed, a study conducted by a qualified archaeologist to determine whether the project would materially impact the archaeological resource. If the project would disturb an archaeological resource, the City will impose any and all measures to avoid or substantially lessen the impact. If avoidance of the archaeological resource is not possible, an appropriate research design must be developed and implemented with full data recovery of the archaeological resource prior to the development project. The avoidance of archaeological resources through selection of project alternatives and changes in design of project features in the specific area of the affected resource(s) would eliminate the need for measuring or mitigating impacts. Non-site-specific mitigation could include developing an educational program, interpretive displays, and design guidelines that focus on compatible materials, and professional publications. 4.14 Transportation Operational Mitigation In 2030, the intersections on NE 12th Street at Edmonds Avenue NE and at Harrington Avenue NE are expected to operate at level of service (LOS) E or F under Alternatives 2 and Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative. This exceeds the LOS D mobility standard during the PM peak hour. As mitigation at Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street, the single shared turn lane on the southbound approach could be restriped to include a separate left-turn lane and a shared through-right lane. This additional turn capacity would allow through or right-turning vehicles to make their movement without waiting behind southbound left-turning vehicles. Similarly, the single shared turn westbound approach could be striped to include a dedicated right-turn lane and a shared through-left turn lane. The westbound right-turn volume is more than double the through and left-turn volume combined. A separate right-turn lane would add capacity and would alleviate the heaviest movement. Right-turn vehicles would be able to proceed independently of the through or left-turn vehicles. An additional southbound left-turn pocket and westbound right-turn pocket would improve operations to LOS D under Alternative 2 and LOS E under Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative. Under Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative, the added turn-lane capacity improvements would reduce delay at the heaviest movements to within 5 seconds of meeting the LOS D threshold. Instead of additional permanent mitigation, demand management strategies could be used to improve LOS at Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street. Pedestrian- and bicycle-oriented paths or multi-use trails could be developed between the neighborhoods north of NE 12th Street and the retail or commercial uses along NE Sunset Boulevard. Paths could include outdoor furniture and public art. Destinations could have secure bike storage areas and well-lit public spaces. Improved pedestrian and bicycle connectivity could make using nonmotorized modes into town more attractive and could encourage a shift from driving to walking or biking. This shift could reduce the number of vehicles expected on the southbound left and westbound right movements at Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street. At the Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street intersection, the eastbound approach could be restriped to have a separate left-turn lane and a shared through-right lane, instead of the single shared turn lane currently in place. The westbound approach could be restriped to include two through lanes (each with a shared turn movement) to increase capacity of the approach. Parking may need to be restricted on the westbound receiving leg during peak periods to accommodate the additional through lane of traffic. With implementation of these suggested mitigation measures, the Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street intersection would operate at LOS D under Alternative 2 in 2030. Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative would require the eastbound approach to be restriped with two shared turn through lanes to meet the LOS D threshold. Both the eastbound and westbound directions would likely require parking restrictions during the PM peak on the respective receiving legs to accommodate the additional through movement, but no apparent right-of-way take or construction would be necessary.
Construction Mitigation Temporary mitigation during construction may be necessary to ensure safe travel and manage traffic delays. The
No permanent mitigation measures are recommended within Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. The intersection operations under either action alternatives are expected to be within the LOS D threshold. During construction, mitigation measures would be similar to those described for the Planned Action Study Area. Flaggers, advance warning signage to alert motorists of detours or closures, and reduced speed zones would likely benefit traffic operations.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-56 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea following mitigation measures could be implemented prior to or during construction within the Planned Action Study Area.
Prior to construction:
o Assess pavement and subsurface condition of roadways being proposed for transport of construction materials and equipment. Ensure pavement can support loads. Adequate pavement quality would likely reduce the occurrence of potholes and would help maintain travel speeds.
o Alert landowners and residents of potential construction. Motorists may be able to adjust schedules and routes to avoid construction areas and minimize disruptions.
o Develop traffic control plans for all affected roadways. Outline procedures for maintenance of traffic, develop detour plans, and identify potential reroutes.
o Place advance warning signage on roadways surrounding construction locations to minimize traffic disturbances.
During construction:
o Place advance warning signage on NE Sunset Boulevard and adjacent arterials to warn motorists of potential vehicles entering and exiting the roadway. Signage could include “Equipment on Road,” “Truck Access,” or “Slow Vehicles Crossing.”
o Use pilot cars as dictated by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).
o Encourage carpooling among construction workers to reduce traffic volume to and from the construction site.
o Employ flaggers, as necessary, to direct traffic when vehicles or large equipment are entering or exiting the public road system to minimize risk of conflicts between trucks and passenger vehicles.
o Maintain at least one travel lane at all times, if possible. Use flaggers to manage alternating directions of traffic. If lane closures must occur, adequate signage for potential detours or possible delays should be posted.
o Revisit traffic control plans as construction occurs. Revise traffic control plans to improve mobility or address safety issues if necessary.
4.15 Parks and Recreation During construction, impacts adjacent to or in parks within the Planned Action Study Area, such as an increase in noise, dust, and access limitations, would be mitigated as per a construction mitigation plan. The following four mitigation measures would help improve the availability or access to parks and recreation facilities in the Planned Action Study Area.
The City is initiating a parks, recreation, open space and natural resources plan for completion in 2011. That plan could identify alternative LOS standards and parks and recreation opportunities inside or outside of the Planned Action Study Area that could serve the local population.
The City is considering amendments to its development codes that would provide for payment of a fee-in-lieu for required common open space. As proposed, the fee-in-lieu option could be executed when development sites are located within 0.25 mile of a public park and when that park can be safely accessed by pedestrians. The City’s package of amendments also includes park impact fees. (City of Renton 2010b.)
The City and Renton School District could develop a joint-use agreement for public use of school grounds for parks and recreation purposes during non-school hours. An example of a joint-use agreement is the City of Sammamish and Issaquah School District No. 411’s “Interlocal Agreement Regarding the Joint Use, Development, and Maintenance of City and District Properties” (City of Sammamish and Issaquah School District No. 411 2006). These types of agreements define joint-use elements such as activity scheduling, liability, and maintenance. Joint-use agreements between the City and Renton School District could also be used to, at least partially, address the LOS
With the prevalence of public facilities in the Planned Action Study Area as a whole, and the addition of a multi-generational community center, and potentially a library in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, there is opportunity to manage the current facilities in a manner that maximizes their beneficial parks and recreation uses for future population growth. The mitigation measures proposed for the Planned Action Study Area would help serve the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-57 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea deficiencies in existing recreation facilities.
The City could add parks and recreation facilities such as:
o The City could convert current public properties no longer needed for their current uses to parks and recreation uses, such as the Highlands Library that is intending to move and expand off site. Figure 4.15-2 shows properties in public use.
o The City could purchase private property for parks and recreation use. An efficient means would be to consider properties in the vicinity of existing parks and recreation facilities or where additional population growth would be greatest. Draft EIS Figure 4.15-2 shows locations where future demand could be greater and where the City could focus acquisition efforts. 4.16 Public Services Police During construction, security measures will be implemented by developers to reduce potential criminal activity, including on-site security surveillance, lighting, and fencing to prevent public access. The City should design street layouts, open space, and recreation areas to promote visibility for residents and police. Street and sidewalk lighting would discourage theft and vandalism, and enhance security. Revenues from increased retail activity and increased property values could help offset some of the City’s additional expenditures for providing additional officers and responses to incidents.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services Developers will construct all new buildings in compliance with the International Fire Code and Renton Development Regulations (RMC Title 4), including provision of emergency egress routes and installation of fire extinguishing and smoke detection systems. All new buildings will comply with accessibility standard for people with disabilities, per the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Revenues from increased retail activity and increased property values could help offset some of the City’s additional expenditures for providing additional fire and emergency medical service staff to respond to incidents.
Education During renovation of the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center under Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative, the Renton School District should provide temporary transportation or take other equivalent measures to ensure accessibility of the early education program to area children who attend the program. Since the school district typically plans for a shorter-term horizon than the 20 years envisioned for the Planned Action, the district will continue to monitor student generation rates into the future and adjust its facility planning accordingly. The district will continue to implement existing plans to expand permanent student capacity at area schools. In addition, the district may utilize portable classrooms or shift attendance boundaries to address student capacity issues that arise on a shorter term basis. The district will also continue monitoring growth in the number of English Language Learner students in the district, and plan additional capacity in that program to meet growing demands for that service, particularly in schools with high percentages of English Language Learners, such as Highlands Elementary. The school district imposes a school impact fee for new residential construction. This funding source can be used to help provide expanded school facilities needed to serve the growth anticipated under all alternatives (RMC 4-1-160).
Health Care There are no mitigation measures needed or proposed for health care due to the negligible change in the number of beds.
Social Services
Police Mitigation measures described for the Planned Action Study Area would also apply to this Subarea.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services Mitigation measures described for the Planned Action Study Area would also apply to this Subarea.
Education No mitigation measures are necessary or proposed.
Health Care No mitigation measures are necessary or proposed.
Social Services RHA’s provision of community space that could be used for social services or community meeting space for community organizations would serve as mitigation for the proposal under all alternatives. See the discussion under the Planned Action Study Area. RHA should maintain a community meeting space within or near the subarea during construction phase of Sunset Terrace redevelopment in Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative that allows for on-site social service programs to continue to meet within the subarea.
Solid Waste Mitigation measures described for the Planned Action Study Area would also apply to this Subarea.
Public Library The King County Library System should continue to monitor growth within its geographic clusters, and adjust plans for facility sizing and spacing according to shifting trends in population growth.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-58 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The City’s planned improvements to the streetscape and transit facilities that make walking, bicycling, and taking transit more viable modes of transportation would improve accessibility of social services located outside the Planned Action Study Area to area residents. RHA, Renton School District, and the City could work together to relocate the Friendly Kitchen community feeding program under Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative, in which the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center campus, the current site of this program, is redeveloped as part of a family village. Relocation should occur at an accessible location nearby to maintain service to the existing community that relies upon the Friendly Kitchen services. If possible, Renton School District and RHA could incorporate space for the continuation of the Friendly Kitchen Program within the family village. RHA and the City could consider developing a community center facility as part of Sunset Terrace redevelopment or the family village development or at another location in the Planned Action Study Area. The center would provide an accessible on-site space for a comprehensive range of social services for residents in the Planned Action Study Area, focused on alleviating poverty, and addressing the needs of some of the more predominant demographic groups found within the Planned Action Study Area—seniors, individuals living with disabilities, those speaking English as a Second Language, and youth.
Solid Waste The City’s Solid Waste Utility should work with the development community to make efforts to recycle or reuse building materials where possible when redeveloping sites, to minimize input to the construction-related waste stream. The City’s Solid Waste Utility and private waste haulers should maintain a recycling and waste reduction program consistent with the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan to minimize waste production.
Public Library The King County Library System should continue to monitor growth within its geographic clusters, and adjust plans for facility sizing and spacing according to shifting trends in population growth.
4.17 Utilities Water To mitigate the current and projected water storage deficit in the pressure zones that serve the study area, the City completed the construction of the 4.2-million-gallon Hazen Reservoir in the Highlands 565 pressure zone in March 2009. The City also completed a water distribution storage feasibility study to develop conceptual options and planning level cost estimates for expanding the storage capacity at two existing City-owned sites: the Highlands Reservoirs site and the Mt. Olivet Tank site (HDR, Inc. 2009). Financial strategies for the planning, design, and construction of the storage-capacity expansion have not been determined at this time. To mitigate the fire-flow requirements for the proposed level of development and redevelopment within the Planned Action Study Area, larger diameter (12-inch) piping is required throughout the Planned Action Study Area to convey the higher fire-flow requirements. The new water mains will be looped for reliability and redundancy of service, as required by City policies and water design standards. The larger mains will be installed within the dedicated right-of-way in a north-to-south and east-to-west grid-style water system. Additional mains within the development sites will also be required to provide water to hydrants and water meters, and should be looped within the development site around buildings. To provide the water pressure requirements for multistory buildings and to support the pressure requirements for fire sprinkler systems, the new water mains will be connected to the higher-pressure Highlands 565 pressure zone. The options to address fire flow within the Planned Action Study Area are further described below. The Highlands 565 pressure zone typically has enough pressure to meet the pressure needs for fire-flow requirements for the proposed development and redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area, but is limited in providing the fire-flow rate due to the size of the existing water mains that are generally smaller than 12 inches in diameter. The Highlands 435 pressure zone operates at lower pressures and has smaller-diameter pipes in this area of the pressure zone and, therefore, cannot meet both the pressure requirements and the fire-flow capacity (flow) requirements. The options developed to remedy fire-flow and pressure inadequacies are shown in Draft EIS Section 4.17, Figure 4.17-1 and
Water The mitigation measures that are required in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are similar to those noted for the Planned Action Study Area. The water storage deficit would be met with an increase in storage at the existing Highlands Reservoirs site, and fire-flow requirements would require the new 12-inch-diameter pipe loop throughout this subarea and realignment of the Highlands 435 and Highlands 565 pressure zones. As noted previously, the City has recently installed a new 12-inch-diameter main for development adjacent to this subarea, and as development occurs in the subarea, the pipe network would need to be extended to serve the development. A more detailed discussion of needed sewer system improvements is provided below.
Overview Renton fire and building codes mandate minimum fire flows, durations, and pressure prior to occupancy of new structures. In the case of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea these mandated flows dictate substantial upgrades to the water distribution system. When the fire flow required for a new development exceeds 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm), the City also requires that the mains providing that fire flow be looped. Looped water mains provide more reliability and higher pressures under fire-flow conditions. City regulations also require installation of fire hydrants along all arterials such as NE Sunset Boulevard. Taken together these code requirements would lead to a series of new water mains connected to the 565 pressure zone and extended to the various redevelopment projects within the subarea. It is not possible to predict the precise timing and sequencing of these redevelopment projects. The following paragraphs illustrate one scenario of water main sequencing that could meet fire-flow requirements.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-59 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea summarized below. A 12-inch-diameter pipeline loop shown in Draft EIS Section 4.17, Figure 4.17-1 was developed to extend the Highlands 565 pressure zone into the existing Highlands 435 pressure zone. This 12-inch-diameter loop was also extended north of NE 12th Street in the existing Highlands 565 pressure zone to improve the conveyance capacity throughout the Planned Action Study Area. This 12-inch-diameter loop improvement builds on the City’s recent extension of the Highlands 565 pressure zone into the Highlands 435 pressure zone to support fire-flow requirements for the Harrington Square Development. In addition to the 12-inch-diameter pipe loop shown in Draft EIS Section 4.17, Figure 4.17-1, additional piping improvements for each development served from the 12-inch-diameter loop are expected to be required to provide sufficient fire flow and pressure throughout each development. The sizing and layout of this additional piping will depend on the development layout, but will require that the development piping be looped around buildings and be sufficient in size to maintain the fire-flow requirements of the development.
Wastewater Collection The local wastewater collection system n the Planned Action Study Area is scheduled for replacement based on age and condition as noted in the City of Renton Long Range Wastewater Management Plan (City of Renton 2009b). The local sewers have reached the end of their useful life and have been identified as high priority replacements due to leaks and current surcharging. However, the increased wastewater load with the development in the Planned Action Study Area could require that the local sewers be replaced with larger diameter pipe to provide sufficient capacity to the wastewater interceptors that serve the Planned Action Study Area. The locations where lines would be improved are identified in Draft EIS Section 4.17.
Edmonds-Glenwood Phase 1 Phase 1 of the Edmonds-Glenwood redevelopment project consists of townhomes along Glenwood Avenue NE. Fire- flow requirements for this project are expected to be in the range of 2,500 gpm. The existing water system along Glenwood Avenue NE cannot provide that amount of fire flow. A new 12-inch-diameter water main would be required to be extended from Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street in the 565 pressure zone, south along Harrington Avenue NE, and continuing along Glenwood Avenue NE past and through the project site, about 800 feet of new pipe (Segment A on Figure 3.17-1).
New Library A new library is proposed in the northeast quadrant of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE. If the fire-flow requirements for the new library are about 2,500 gpm or less, then the existing 12-inch-diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard could meet that requirement.
New Mixed-Use Building Adjacent to New Library A new mixed-use community service/retail/residential structure is proposed adjacent to the new library between NE Sunset Boulevard, NE 10th Street, and Sunset Lane NE. It is reasonable to expect that the combination of additional structure size and exposure (to the library) would mandate fire flows for this building in excess of 2,500 gpm. In that case, a looped system of mains from the 565 pressure zone would be required. This could be achieved by extending new mains from the existing 12-inch-diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard northwesterly on both Harrington Avenue NE and NE 10th Street to Sunset Lane NE. The loop could then be connected by installing a new 12-inch-diameter main in Sunset Lane NE from Harrington Avenue NE to NE 10th Street. The existing water main in Sunset Lane NE could then be abandoned in place. This new loop would be about 700 feet in total length. (Segment B on Figure 3.17-1).
RHA’s Piha Site Fire flows required for the PIHA site development have not been established. If the flow requirement is 2,500 gpm or less, then it could be met by extending a new 12 inch main in NE 10th Street past the site to Harrington Avenue NE. The extension could either be from NE Sunset Boulevard (if the project precedes the mixed use development adjacent to the library). Or it could be from Sunset Lane NE, if the project occurs after the mixed use development adjacent to the library. The length of pipe required from Sunset Boulevard would be about 500 feet; from Sunset Lane NE it would be about 350 feet. (Segment C on Figure 3.17-1) It is possible that required fire flows for the PIHA site would exceed 2,500 gpm. In that situation a looped main system would be necessary. There are multiple scenarios to meet the looping requirements. Those fire flow looping scenarios depend largely on the timing and sequencing of the PISA site project; i.e. does it precede or follow other redevelopment projects contemplated for the project area. Under one scenario, if the PIHA site development precedes construction of Phase II and III of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment looping could be achieved by extending another main (in addition to Segment C, discussed above) north on Harrington Avenue NE to Glenwood Avenue NE (Segment H on Figure 3.17-1). If PIHA site development follows Phases II and III of Sunset Terrace, looping could be achieved by simply connecting the PIHA main extension in NE 10th Street (Segment C) with Segment E at the intersection of Harrington Avenue NE and NE 10th Street. Under another scenario, the PIHA site development could proceed before all other projects. In that case the cost of looping would not be shared with other projects as described in the preceding paragraphs and the PIHA site project would need to install either a “long-term” or a “temporary” 12 inch diameter “stand alone” water main loop. The “long-term” alignment would be to extend a 12-inch main in Harrington Avenue NE connecting to the existing high-pressure water line in NE Sunset Blvd. This option would result in the installation of a new water main in the section of Harrington Avenue NE that is proposed to be vacated to help create the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Neighborhood Park. The new 12-inch water main would be looped around the west and north side of the new PIHA site building and extended southerly in Sunset Lane NE to NE 10th Street, then southeasterly in NE 10th Street to connect back to the existing 12-inch line in Sunset Boulevard NE. (Segment P1 on Figure 3.17-1)This new looped water main would be able to deliver about 5,000 gpm. A temporary route (which is not the preferred option) to provide 5,000 gpm to the same site would be to extend two parallel 12-inch water lines in NE 10th Street from the existing 12-inch line in Sunset Boulevard NE, along with a looped water main around the west and north side of the building, and a 12-inch line in Sunset Lane NE connecting back to the
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-60 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea second new 12-inch main in NE 10th Street. (Segment P2 on Figure 3.17-1)
Sunset Terrace Redevelopment It is reasonable to assume that the fire flows required for the Sunset Terrace redevelopment would exceed 2,500 gpm, mandating the installation of a looped system. In addition, Sunset Terrace abuts NE Sunset Boulevard, triggering the requirement to install hydrants every 400 feet along that arterial. It may be possible to phase the Sunset Terrace redevelopment in a manner that would allow early elements of the redevelopment to be constructed without looping the water mains (see Edmonds-Glenwood Phase 1, above). In any case, all mains serving the redevelopment would be extended from the 565 pressure zone. Initially, a new water main would be installed in Sunset Lane NE from Harrington Avenue NE to Glenwood Avenue NE (about 750 feet). This presumes that the new main in Harrington Avenue NE discussed in the Mixed- Use Building section, above, has been installed. The existing water main in Sunset Lane NE could be abandoned in place (Segment D on Figure 3.17-1). Looping the system could be achieved by extending the main from the intersection of Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE along the newly aligned NE 10th Street to Harrington Avenue NE (about 250 feet) (Segment E on Figure 3.17-1). This presumes that the water main extension in NE 10th Street to serve RHA’s Piha site has already been installed. There are two ways to install the required fire hydrants along NE Sunset Boulevard. One option would be to extend the 12-inch-diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard from Harrington Avenue NE along the Sunset Terrace frontage (about 800 feet). This would be the most expensive option. Another option would be to extend fire hydrant leads southwesterly through the Sunset Terrace project from Sunset Lane NE to NE Sunset Boulevard at the appropriate intervals (Segments F on Figure 3.17-1). This would be the least expensive option for two reasons: First, the pipes would not be installed in a street avoiding significant restoration costs. Second, the pipes could be smaller because they would be single purpose and not part of the City’s transmission/distribution system.
Edmonds-Glenwood Phase 2 Fire-flow requirements for the Edmonds-Glenwood Phase 2 project are expected to be about 4,000 gpm, triggering the requirement to loop the water system. There are two options to meet this looping requirement: north or south. The north option would involve extending the 12-inch-diameter main from Phase 1 westerly through the site to Edmonds Avenue NE. From there, the main would be extended north in Edmonds Avenue NE to NE 12th Street, then east in NE 12th Street to Harrington Avenue NE, a distance of more than 1,500 feet (Segment G on Figure 3.17-1). The south option would begin in the same manner by extending the Phase 1 main through the project site. Looping would be achieved by installing two new mains. One would extend from Sunset Lane NE north in Glenwood Avenue NE to the Phase 1 pipe. The other would extend northwesterly in easements adjacent to NE Sunset Boulevard and Edmonds Avenue NE from the northern-most fire hydrant lead installed for the Sunset Terrace project through the Phase 2 site. (A more expensive option would be to install this same section of pipe in the rights-of-way of NE Sunset Boulevard and Edmonds Avenue NE.) These loops would also comprise more than 1,500 feet of new pipe (Segment H on Figure 3.17-1).
Water Main Costs The cost of installation for new water mains is driven by a number of factors. Water mains installed along roads are more expensive than water mains installed in open space areas, because of the cost savings of avoiding conflicting utilities and restoring the road surface. New water main costs are also affected by whether they are standalone or part of a suite of infrastructure improvements. If the project is only installing a new water main, then all of the excavation, bedding, installation, and other costs are borne by that project. If the project involves installation of the other underground utilities such as sewers or storm sewers, the costs common to the project can be spread across each utility facility being installed. The cost of water mains is also affected by the project sponsor. If the project is being constructed by a private developer, new water mains are less expensive. If the project is sponsored by a government agency, numerous statutes make new water main projects more expensive. The City’s recent experience with standalone water main projects in a major arterial indicate costs per foot of about $200 to $250. Applying these costs to the water main improvement described above would indicate costs in the range of
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-61 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Resource* Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea $1 to 1.2 million. The improvements would be implemented with City and developer funding.
Wastewater Collection
Overview The sewers within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are also identified for replacement based on age and condition in the City’s Long Range Wastewater Management Plan. Based on the increased wastewater load within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, the local sewers may need to be replaced with upsized pipe to manage the increased wastewater load from the subarea. A more detailed discussion of needed sewer system improvements is provided below.
Detailed Discussion Mitigation issues related to wastewater fall into three broad categories: upsizing, rehabilitation, and relocation. Wastewater flows (forecast for the Planned Action Study Area, including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) indicate that some existing sewer pipes must be replaced with larger pipes. One of those pipes is in Harrington Avenue NE. This sewer pipe would be replaced by the City as part of the overall Sunset Terrace redevelopment to accommodate forecast flows. Manholes along the Harrington alignment would be carefully designed and located to avoid interference with the planned park. The collection sewers in Sunset Lane NE are at or near the end of their design life. The condition of these sewers would be assessed to determine if they can be rehabilitated in place or if new pipes would need to be installed. The redevelopment concept proposes narrowing and shifting the alignment of Sunset Lane NE. If this action leaves the existing sewers too close to new structures, then the City would require that a new sewer main be installed within the new right-of-way of Sunset Lane NE. *Numbering of resource areas is based on the resource analysis section numbering from the Draft EIS. Resource section numbering for analysis of the Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS differs.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-63 April 2011
ICF 593.10
1.7 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Table 1-3 describes whether there are any residual impacts after application of mitigation measures, and whether these are significant, unavoidable, and adverse.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-64 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Table 1-3. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Resource* Impacts 4.1 Earth There are no significant unavoidable adverse earth impacts. 4.2 Air Quality No significant unavoidable adverse impacts on regional or local air quality are anticipated. Temporary, localized dust and odor impacts could occur during the construction activities. The regulations and mitigation measures described above are adequate to mitigate any adverse impacts anticipated to occur as a result of study area growth increases. 4.3 Water Resources None of the alternatives would have significant unavoidable adverse impacts on water resources, because the redevelopment would likely result in an improvement of runoff and recharge water quality. In addition, the net change in effective impervious area can be adequately mitigated through the self-mitigating features of the action alternatives and through implementation of the stormwater code, as described under Draft EIS Section 4.3.2 and Final EIS Section 3.3. 4.4 Plants and Animals No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would occur for plants and animals under any alternative. 4.5 Energy Additional energy would be consumed and would contribute to increases in demand associated with the growth and development of the region. As described in the Utilities Element of the City Comprehensive Plan, it is anticipated that existing and planned infrastructure of affected energy utilities could accommodate growth. Energy conservation features would be incorporated into building design as required by the current City building codes. For the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, HUD encourages public housing authorities such as RHA to use Energy Star, renewable energy, and green construction practices in public housing. As such, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts on energy use are anticipated. 4.6 Noise No significant unavoidable adverse construction or operational traffic noise impacts are anticipated in the Planned Action Study Area with the implementation of mitigation measures noted above. No significant unavoidable adverse traffic noise impacts are anticipated at residences along NE Sunset Boulevard in the Planned Action Study Area per WSDOT criteria, because the noise increase caused by NE Sunset Boulevard traffic is less than the WSDOT “substantial increase” impact threshold. Portions of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, even under existing conditions and the No Action Alternative, would be deemed normally unacceptable under the HUD noise criteria without implementation of noise attenuation mitigation, due to traffic noise from the adjacent street (NE Sunset Boulevard). No significant unavoidable adverse noise impacts are anticipated in this subarea, if the noise control measures noted above are implemented to reduce anticipated future traffic noise to levels suitable for residential uses under the HUD criteria. 4.7 Environmental Health No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are identified at the programmatic level throughout the Planned Study Area or for the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea for any of the studied alternatives. Contaminated sites would be avoided during project design when possible; implementing the mitigation approaches described above would minimize or eliminate adverse effects on human health and the environment. 4.8 Land Use Although intensification of land uses in the Planned Action Study Area, including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, would occur and density would increase, this change would be consistent with applicable plans, zoning, and land use character. Plan consistency can be addressed by Comprehensive Plan amendments using the City’s legislative process. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse impacts.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-65 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Resource* Impacts 4.9 Socioeconomics No long-term significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated under Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative. Both of tThese alternatives would encourage new development in the both the Planned Action Study Area and the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea that would result in beneficial changes to the socioeconomic conditions. Under Alternative 1, the study area would not benefit from the changes identified for the action alternatives. Instead, the study area would redevelop more slowly and, in turn, economic conditions would improve more slowly. Connectivity would not be improved along NE Sunset Boulevard, and the Sunset Terrace tenants would remain in the existing structures that would continue to degrade. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative, relocation of the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would result in short-term impacts; however, these impacts would be mitigated. The creation of new jobs and spending in the subarea during construction of new developments would result in short-term benefits. 4.10 Housing Housing in the Planned Action Study Area would likely redevelop to some degree to take advantage of adopted plans and zoning. However, the alternatives would allow for the construction of new dwelling units to replace those that are eliminated. Lower-cost housing could be replaced with more costly housing. Implementation of City regulatory incentives and use of federal, state, and local housing funds and programs could reduce potential affordability impacts. Through its regular Comprehensive Plan review cycles, the City could monitor housing trends in the neighborhood and adapt measures to promote affordability. During construction and in the short-term, residents would be subject to construction activities and the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would be required to relocate during demolition and construction. However, relocation assistance mitigation measures for RHA units would mitigate impacts. 4.11 Environmental Justice There are no long-term significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to environmental justice. The action alternatives would result in primarily beneficial impacts associated with new dwelling units, new civic facilities and parks, improvements in nonmotorized transportation, and new employment opportunities in the surrounding area. During construction and in the short-term residents would be subject to construction activities and the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would be required to relocate during demolition and construction. However, construction mitigation and relocation assistance mitigation measures (for the RHA units) would minimize impacts. 4.12 Aesthetics With the application of adopted development regulations and recommended mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic impacts are anticipated. 4.13 Historic and Cultural Resources The impacts on cultural resources caused by new development associated with any alterative could be significant and unavoidable, depending on the nature and proximity of the proposed development project. Implementation of mitigation measures set forth in Draft EIS Section 4.13.2 as amended in this Final EIS would identify potential impacts on cultural resources, at which point measures to reduce them to less than significant could be taken. 4.14 Transportation The alternatives are expected to contribute to a cumulative increase in traffic volumes within the study area, which could degrade some roadway operations. The increase in traffic volumes due to activities in the study area is considered unavoidable, but the roadway operation and LOS can be mitigated to meet applicable LOS standards.
City of Renton
Chapter 1. Summary
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1-66 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Resource* Impacts 4.15 Parks and Recreation Under studied alternatives for the Planned Action Study Area and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, there would be an increased demand for parks and recreation facilities. With the application of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable impacts are anticipated. 4.16 Public Services Demand for public services will continue to increase in conjunction with population growth. With advanced planning and implementation of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to police, fire/emergency medical, education, health care, social services, solid waste, or library services are anticipated. 4.17 Utilities All studied alternatives are anticipated to increase demand for water, wastewater, and telecommunication services. Increased growth in the Planned Action Study Area has the potential to exacerbate existing water and wastewater system deficiencies. However, with application of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. *Numbering of resource areas is based on the resource analysis section numbering from the Draft EIS. Resource section numbering for analysis of the Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS differs.
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-1 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Chapter 2
Proposal and Alternatives
2.1 Introduction This Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addresses the Sunset Area Community Planned Action, which includes redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and associated neighborhood growth and revitalization (proposal). Sunset Terrace’s redevelopment provides the opportunity to evaluate the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood and determine what future land use redevelopment is desirable and what public service and infrastructure improvements should be made to create a more vibrant and attractive community for residents, businesses, and property owners. This chapter describes the proposal and alternatives that are analyzed in this EIS. Clarifications and corrections to the Draft EIS, as well as the Preferred Alternative analysis, are shown in track changes.
2.2 Proponent The Renton Housing Authority (RHA) is the proponent of the proposal’s primary development action, redevelopment of the existing Sunset Terrace public housing community. In accordance with specific statutory authority and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) regulations at 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 58, the City is authorized to assume responsibility for environmental review, decision-making, and action that would otherwise apply to HUD under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which includes NEPA lead agency responsibility. As the entity responsible for public service and infrastructure improvements for Sunset Terrace and the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood as well as regulating private neighborhood redevelopment, the City is the proponent of the broader Planned Action that would streamline local permitting and environmental review under Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 43.21C). The City implements SEPA and NEPA and is performing joint NEPA/SEPA environmental review in this EIS. The City, in partnership with RHA and other agencies, intends to use federal funds from several HUD programs to help finance proposed project activities. Such programs may include Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing (HOPE VI), the Choice Neighborhoods Appropriations programs, or other programs.
2.3 Project Location The Sunset Terrace public housing community is generally bounded by Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE on the north, NE 10th Street on the east, NE Sunset Boulevard (State Route [SR] 900) on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west (Figure 2-1).
NE 12TH ST
NE
7
T
H
S
TEDMONDS AVE NEHARRINGTON AVE NENE SUNSET BLVDMONROE AVE NEBLAINE AVE NENE 16
T
H
S
T
ABERDEEN AVE NEOLYMPIA AVE NESUNSET BLVD NENE PAR
K
D
R
NE 10TH ST
NE 6TH
P
L
NE 10TH PL
DAYTON AVE NENE 9TH STLYNNWOOD AVE NEINDEX AVE NEJEFFERSON AVE NENE 8T
H
P
L
NE 11TH ST
NE 17TH PL
KIRKLAND AVE NENE 8TH S
T
NE 9TH PL
NE 7TH PL
NE 11TH PL
SUNSET LN NENE 15TH ST
NE 13TH PL
NE 21ST ST
INDEX PL NENE 20TH ST
GLENWOOD AVE NENE 19TH ST
INDEX CT NENE 17TH STKIRKLAND PL NENE 18TH ST
CAMAS AVE NENE 13
T
H
S
T
NE 6TH
C
I
R FERNDALE CIR NENE 15TH PL
NE 14TH ST
MONROE AVE NEDAYTON AVE NENE 18TH ST
GLENWOOD AVE NENE 9TH ST
NE 20TH ST
INDEX AVE NEABERDEEN AVE NENE 21ST STNE 21ST ST
NE 13TH ST
NE 14TH ST
NE 21ST ST
NE 8TH PL
KIRKLAND AVE NESUNSET LN NENE 7TH STNE 8T
H
S
T
N
E
1
0
T
H
S
TDAYTON AVE NEINDEX AVE NENE 10TH STKIRKLAND AVE NENE 8TH ST
NE 10TH PLDAYTON AVE NELYNNWOOD AVE NENE 20
T
H S
T
CAMAS AVE NEFigure 2-1
Planned Action Study Area
Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
Source: City of Renton; King County
00593.10/GIS - Revised: 10/12/2010City Limits
Planned Action Study Area
Subarea
Central
North
South
Sunset Mixed Use
Potential Sunset
Terrace Redevelopment
0 500 1,000
Feet
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-3 April 2011
ICF 593.10
The Sunset Terrace public housing community is part of the Sunset Area Community neighborhood. This broader neighborhood is the Planned Action Study Area considered in this EIS; it is generally bounded by NE 21st Street on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7th Street on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west. The Sunset Area Community neighborhood is part of northeast Renton and is also known as or referred to as the Highlands area (Figure 2-1). The Planned Action Study Area has been broken down into subareas to allow the EIS discussion to distinguish the site-specific redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace property from the broader programmatic actions occurring throughout the Planned Action Study Area. The five subareas are shown on Figure 2-1 and described below.
Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea includes the Sunset Terrace public housing site and adjacent vacant or non-RHA owned RHA-purchased properties being considered for redevelopment into a mixed-use, mixed-income community. This subarea is being analyzed at a site-specific level and is the primary action under review in this EIS for NEPA purposes.
Sunset Mixed-Use Subarea encompasses larger parcels with a mix of uses that are centered on NE Sunset Boulevard (SR 900).
Central Subarea is a multifamily area containing the current Highlands Library. This subarea is adjacent to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment and Sunset Mixed-Use subareas.
North Subarea is made up of lower density residential north of the Central and Sunset Mixed-Use subareas but also includes park and educational facilities.
South Subarea is a mostly lower density residential district located south of NE Sunset Boulevard that includes park and educational facilities.
2.4 Proposal Overview The proposal is to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community and promote associated neighborhood growth and revitalization as part of a Planned Action. Redevelopment of the public housing community and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance would encourage redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area through land use transformation and growth, public service and infrastructure improvements, and a streamlined environmental review process. The components of the proposal are described below.
2.4.1 Sunset Terrace Redevelopment The proposal includes redevelopment of RHA’s Sunset Terrace public housing community, a 7.3-acre property with 100 existing units. The units are contained within 27 buildings, which are 50-year-old, two-story structures, located at the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE. RHA owns additional vacant and residential land (approximately 3 acres with two dwelling units) along Edmonds Avenue NE, Glenwood Avenue NE, and Sunset Lane NE, and the authority proposes to purchase additional property adjacent to Sunset Terrace, along Harrington Avenue NE (which contains about eight dwellings).1
1 Proposed only under Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative, as described in Section 2.7.
RHA plans to incorporate these additional properties into the Sunset Terrace redevelopment for housing and associated services.
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-4 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Conceptual plans currently propose redevelopment of Sunset Terrace and adjacent properties with mixed-income, mixed-use residential and commercial space and public amenities. Redevelopment would include a 1-to-1 unit replacement for all 100 existing public housing units, some of which would occur on site and some of which would occur elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area. It is expected that, with the Sunset Terrace property and associated properties owned or purchased by RHA, up to 479 additional new units could be constructed, with a portion of the units being public, affordable, and market rate.2
2.4.2 Other Components of the Planned Action
Public amenities would be integrated with the residential development and could include the following: a community gathering space or “third place;” civic facilities such as a community center, senior center, and/or public library space; a new park/open space; retail shopping and commercial space; and green infrastructure.
As a result of the planned Sunset Terrace redevelopment, it is expected that private redevelopment in the 269-acre 3
While some improvements have been anticipated in City plans, some improvements have not been incorporated (e.g., drainage master plan). To recognize proposed capital improvements, the City will make associated Comprehensive Plan amendments (e.g., to the Capital Facilities and Transportation elements) as part of the Planned Action process.
Planned Action Study Area would be catalyzed over a 20-year period. Public service and infrastructure investments that would support both Sunset Terrace redevelopment and redevelopment elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area include planned or anticipated upgrades to NE Sunset Boulevard and other local streets; stormwater drainage systems; neighborhood parks and recreational facilities; and neighborhood community facilities that may offer educational, library, or social services.
2.4.3 Planned Action Ordinance The City is also proposing to adopt a Planned Action Ordinance pursuant to SEPA. A Planned Action Ordinance, if adopted, would exempt future projects from SEPA threshold determinations or EISs for those projects that are determined to be consistent with the Sunset Area Community EIS assumptions and mitigation measures. By streamlining the redevelopment permit process, the Planned Action Ordinance would increase the likelihood that planned public agency investments would lead to a transformation of the community. The proposed Planned Action boundary is consistent with the Planned Action Study Area boundary shown in Figure 2-1.
2 For the purposes of this EIS, these terms are defined as follows:
Public Housing denotes replacement Sunset Terrace public housing units managed by RHA and subject to HUD restrictions. Rent is based on household income, and units typically serve 0% to 30% Area Median Income (AMI).
Affordable denotes housing that requires some type of public sector subsidy. Rents are typically set lower than market rate, units typically serve 30% to 60% AMI, and eligibility includes income restrictions.
Market denotes housing developed completely with private sector funds, with no restrictions on pricing or income eligibility. 3 The study area equals approximately 269 gross acres, and the net parcel acres equal approximately 213.
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-5 April 2011
ICF 593.10
2.5 Background Information This section presents an overview of the regulations and programs that are guiding the Sunset Terrace redevelopment and the Sunset Area Community revitalization, the public process used to develop the proposal alternatives, and the NEPA and SEPA analysis of the proposal alternatives.
2.5.1 Regulatory Overview The planned Sunset Terrace redevelopment and expected revitalization of the surrounding neighborhood would take place in the context of the City of Renton’s land use plans and regulations as well as other state and federal requirements. RHA has developed concept plans for Sunset Terrace in recognition of the City’s adopted land use plans and regulations and in recognition of the purpose and need for the proposal and its ongoing programs. City and RHA planning efforts are described below.
2.5.1.1 Existing Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations The City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations promote a more intense node of mixed-use development in the Planned Action Study Area, with transitional areas of multiplexes and townhomes and single-family dwellings moving away from the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor. Building heights could extend to 60 feet along the boulevard and 30 feet in the townhouse and single-family areas to the north and south. New development is also subject to design standards that address building modulation. Figure 2-2 presents existing Comprehensive Plan land use designations, and Figure 2-3 presents existing zoning. The majority of the Planned Action Study Area, including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, is designated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan as Center Village (CV). This designation extends north and south of NE Sunset Boulevard and generally reflects the location of commercial and multifamily uses on larger parcels. Its purpose statement describes the following (City of Renton 2009a): Center Village is characterized by areas of the City that provide an opportunity for redevelopment as close-in urban mixed-use residential and commercial areas that are pedestrian-oriented. These areas are anticipated to provide medium- to high-density residential development and a wide range of commercial activities serving citywide and subregional markets. Center Villages typically are developed within an existing suburban land use pattern where opportunities exist to modify the development pattern to accommodate more growth within the existing urban areas by providing for compact urban development, transit orientation, pedestrian circulation, and a community focal point organized around an urban village concept. A second designation in the Comprehensive Plan, Residential Single Family (RS), applies to public facilities such as schools and parks and adjacent single-family lots. Its purpose statement describes the following (City of Renton 2009a): Land designated Residential Single Family is intended to be used for quality detached residential development organized into neighborhoods at urban densities. It is intended that larger subdivision, infill development, and rehabilitation of existing housing be carefully designed to enhance and improve the quality of single-family living environments.”
NE 12TH ST
NE 7TH S
TEDMONDS AVE NEHARRINGTON AVE NENE SUNSET BLVDMONROE AVE NEBLAINE AVE NENE 16TH STABERDEEN AVE NEOLYMPIA AVE NESUNSET BLVD NENE PARK DR
NE 10TH ST
NE 6TH PL
NE 10TH PL
DAYTON AVE NENE 9TH STLYNNWOOD AVE NEINDEX AVE NEJEFFERSON AVE NENE 8TH PL
NE 11TH ST
NE 17TH PL
KIRKLAND AVE NENE 8TH ST
NE 9TH PL
NE 7TH PL
NE 11TH PL
SUNSET LN NENE 15TH ST
NE 13TH PL
NE 21ST ST
INDEX
PL
NE
NE 20TH ST
GLENWOOD AVE NENE 19TH ST
INDEX CT NENE 17TH STKIRKLAND PL NENE 18TH ST
CAMAS AVE NENE 13TH STNE 6TH CIR FERNDALE CIR NENE 15TH PL
NE 14TH ST
MONROE AVE NEDAYTON AVE NENE 18TH ST
GLENWOOD AVE NENE 9TH ST
NE 20TH ST
INDEX
AVE
NEABERDEEN AVE NENE 21ST STNE 21ST ST
NE 13TH ST
NE 14TH ST
NE 21ST ST
NE 8TH PL
KIRKLAND AVE NESUNSET LN NENE 7TH STNE 8TH ST
NE 1
0
T
H
S
TDAYTON AVE NEINDEX AVE NENE 10TH STKIRKLAND AVE NENE 8TH ST
NE 10TH PLDAYTON AVE NELYNNWOOD AVE NENE 20TH STCAMAS AVE NEFigure 2-2
Existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations
Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
Source: City of Renton; King County
00593.10/GIS - Revised: 10/21/2010City Limits
Planned Action Study AreaFuture Land Use
Commercial Corridor
Commercial Neighborhood
Center Village
Residential Low Density
Residential Medium Density
Residential Multifamily
Residential Single Family
0 500 1,000
Feet
NE 12TH ST
NE 7TH S
TEDMONDS AVE NEHARRINGTON AVE NENE SUNSET BLVDMONROE AVE NEBLAINE AVE NENE 16TH STABERDEEN AVE NEOLYMPIA AVE NESUNSET BLVD NENE PARK DR
NE 10TH ST
NE 6TH PL
NE 10TH PL
DAYTON AVE NENE 9TH STLYNNWOOD AVE NEINDEX AVE NEJEFFERSON AVE NENE 8TH PL
NE 11TH ST
NE 17TH PL
KIRKLAND AVE NENE 8TH ST
NE 9TH PL
NE 7TH PL
NE 11TH PL
SUNSET LN NENE 15TH ST
NE 13TH PL
NE 21ST ST
INDEX
PL
NE
NE 20TH ST
GLENWOOD AVE NENE 19TH ST
INDEX CT NENE 17TH STKIRKLAND PL NENE 18TH ST
CAMAS AVE NENE 13TH STNE 6TH CIR FERNDALE CIR NENE 15TH PL
NE 14TH ST
MONROE AVE NEDAYTON AVE NENE 18TH ST
GLENWOOD AVE NENE 9TH ST
NE 20TH ST
INDEX
AVE
NEABERDEEN AVE NENE 21ST STNE 21ST ST
NE 13TH ST
NE 14TH ST
NE 21ST ST
NE 8TH PL
KIRKLAND AVE NESUNSET LN NENE 7TH STNE 8TH ST
NE 1
0
T
H
S
TDAYTON AVE NEINDEX AVE NENE 10TH STKIRKLAND AVE NENE 8TH ST
NE 10TH PLDAYTON AVE NELYNNWOOD AVE NENE 20TH STCAMAS AVE NEFigure 2-3
Existing Zoning
Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
Source: City of Renton; King County
00593.10/GIS - Revised: 10/21/2010City Limits
Planned Action Study AreaZoning
Resource Conservation
Residential 1 (R-1)
Residential 8 (R-8)
Residential 10 (R-10)
Residential 14 (R-14)
Residential Multifamily
Center Village
Commercial Neighborhood
Industrial - Light
0 500 1,000
Feet
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-8 April 2011
ICF 593.10
The Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Comprehensive Plan designation applied to the western extent of the study area has the following purpose (City of Renton 2009a): The purpose of the Commercial Neighborhood designation is to provide small scale, low-intensity commercial areas located within neighborhoods primarily for the convenience of residents who live nearby. Uses should be those that provide goods and services. In addition, a limited amount of residential opportunities should be provided. Implementing zoning is varied under the umbrella of the CV land use designation, including CV, Residential Multifamily (RM-F), Residential 14 (R-14) and Residential 10 (R-10) zones. Corresponding to the CN land use designation is the CN Zone, and the RS land use designation is implemented with the Residential 8 (R-8) zone. The extent and purpose of these zoning classifications is identified in Table 2-1. A majority of the Planned Action Study Area is zoned CV, followed by R-14 and R-8. The Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment subarea is designated and zoned primarily as CV with some R-14.
Table 2-1. Zoning Classifications and Extent in the Planned Action Study Area
Zone Purpose, Density and Height Extent in Net Acres Center Village (CV) The purpose of the CV zone is to provide an opportunity for concentrated mixed-use residential and commercial redevelopment designed to urban rather than suburban development standards that supports transit-oriented development and pedestrian activity. Use allowances promote commercial and retail development opportunities for residents to shop locally. Uses and standards allow complementary, high-density residential development, and discourage garden-style, multifamily development. The CV zone is intended to provide suitable environments for district-scaled retail and commercial development serving more than one neighborhood, but not providing City-wide services.
Minimum density: 20 du/ac. Maximum density: 80 dwelling units per net acre. Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density.
Maximum Height: 50 ft., except 60 ft. if the ground floor of the building is in commercial use
87.4
Commercial Neighborhood (CN) The purpose of the CN zone is to provide for small-scale convenience retail/commercial areas offering incidental retail and service needs for the adjacent area. Uses serving a larger area may be appropriate if they also serve the residents of the immediate area and are compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. This designation is the smallest and least intensive of the City’s commercial zones.
Minimum density: None
Maximum density: 4 du/ac; bonus 1.5 times maximum density for assisted living
Maximum height: 35 feet
1.3
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-9 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Zone Purpose, Density and Height Extent in Net Acres Residential Multifamily (RM-F) The RM-F zone provides suitable environments for multifamily dwellings. It is further intended to conditionally allow uses that are compatible with and support a multifamily environment. The RM-F suffix allows for the development of both infill parcels in existing multifamily districts with compatible projects and other multifamily development.
Density range: 10–20 du/acre
Maximum height: 35 feet; provided 45 feet is allowed when certain amenities are provided such as pitched roofs or underground parking
12.1
Residential 8 (R-8) The R-8 zone is established for single-family residential dwellings, and is intended to implement the Single Family Land Use Comprehensive Plan designation. Development in the R-8 Zone is intended to create opportunities for new single-family residential neighborhoods and to facilitate high-quality infill development that promotes reinvestment in existing single-family neighborhoods. It is intended to accommodate uses that are compatible with and support a high-quality residential environment and add to a sense of community.
Density range: 4–8 du/acre
Maximum height: 30 feet
48.8
Residential 10 (R-10) The R-10 zone is established for medium-density residential development that will provide a mix of residential styles including small-lot detached dwellings or attached dwellings such as townhouses and small-scale flats. The zone promotes opportunities for detached dwellings, as well as small-scale attached housing choices, and high-quality infill development that increase density while maintaining the single-family character of the existing neighborhood. The zone serves as a transition to higher-density multifamily zones.
Density range: 4–10 du/acre
Maximum height: 30 feet
5.0
Residential 14 (R-14) The R-14 zone is established to encourage development/redevelopment of residential neighborhoods that provides a mix of detached and attached dwelling structures organized and designed to combine characteristics of both typical single-family and small-scale multifamily developments. Structure size is intended to be limited in terms of bulk and scale so that the various unit types allowed in the zone are compatible with one another and can be integrated together into a quality neighborhood. Project features are encouraged, such as yards for private use, common open spaces, and landscaped areas that enhance a neighborhood and foster a sense of community. Civic and limited commercial uses may be allowed when they support the purpose of the designation.
Density range: 10–14 du/acre (with opportunities for bonuses up to 18 du/acre) and 30 du/acre for public housing
Maximum height: 30 feet
58.0
Source: Summaries of Renton Municipal Code Title IV du/acre = dwelling units per acre
2.5.2 Planning and Community Involvement Neighborhood planning in the Sunset Area Community has been extensive and has involved many community members. Recent efforts that contributed to the proposal and alternatives studied in this Draft EIS are described below.
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-10 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Highlands Task Force on Land Use and Zoning. In 2006, the City convened the Highlands Task Force on Land Use and Zoning to review a proposal to modify land use and zoning regulations to help stimulate redevelopment in the area and promote compact urban development. Proposed changes emphasized a mix of residential and commercial uses, a range of housing types, innovative design, transit orientation, pedestrian scale amenities, and a community focal point. After citizen, environmental, and Renton City Council review processes were completed, the
Report and Recommendation of the Highlands Area Citizen’s Zoning Task Force (City of Renton 2006) was adopted in May 2007. (City of Renton 2010a.)
Highlands Phase II Task Force. The City formed a second Highlands Task Force in late 2007 to help the City identify, prioritize, and make recommendations about implementing the adopted vision for the Center Village in the Highlands area. After over a year of intense study and discussion and a public meeting, the Task Force produced the Report and Recommendation of the
Highlands Phase II Task Force (City of Renton 2008a), which contained two dozen recommendations for City actions to address new improvements to the Highlands area. In early 2009, the Renton City Council adopted this document by resolution and asked the administration to draw up a work program to begin implementing the Phase II recommendations. (City of Renton 2010a.)
Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy (CIS). Highlands Phase II Task Force recommendations involved creating a “third place” or public gathering space, initiating pedestrian and streetscape improvements, advocating for boulevard improvements for NE Sunset Boulevard, and the development of a subregional stormwater drainage facility. In 2009, the City, RHA, Renton School District, and a team of consultants completed the CIS (City of Renton 2009b). This work elaborated on the “third place” idea of the Highlands Phase II Task Force, further tested the ideas with the community and key stakeholders, and came up with nine implementation strategies. The Renton City Council reviewed the final report and adopted the recommendations for community investment on November 23, 2009. (City of Renton 2010a.) Figure 2-4 presents the elements of the CIS study that have been incorporated into the alternatives studied in this Draft EIS. The top priority in the CIS was to support redevelopment of Sunset Terrace. To conceptually plan the redevelopment of Sunset Terrace, RHA selected a development consultant, Shelter Resources, Inc. (SRI), in 2007, and SRI retained an architect to help plan the property. Conceptual redevelopment designs were first prepared in December 2007 by Bumgardner Architects, and have been the subject of RHA board meetings, throughout 2008 to the present, and of RHA resident meetings on June 19, 2009, and July 12, 2010. A public participation plan was developed in August 2010 during initiation of the EIS process, and is intended to guide public outreach efforts for this environmental review process, using proven techniques from past City and RHA outreach efforts. As part of the EIS process, the proposed Draft EIS alternatives including conceptual plans for Sunset Terrace, NE Sunset Boulevard, and other features were presented to the public at a scoping meeting held on September 1, 2010. This scoping meeting was advertised via distribution of 3,700 postcards, posters, and notices to RHA residents, and publication in the newspaper. Meeting materials were made available in English and Spanish, and Spanish translators were available at the public meeting. Approximately 17 members of the public participated in the scoping meeting. The results of the scoping meeting are included in Draft EIS Appendix A.
Figure 2-4
Sunset Area Neighborhood Framework Diagram for Scoping Purposes
Sunset Area Community Planned Acon Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
NE 5th St
NE 7th St
NE 9th St
NE 12th St
McKnight
Middle School
Hillcrest School NorthHighlandsPark
Highlands
Elementary
School
Renton
Technical
College
Sunset
Terrace
Highlands
Park
Highlands
Library
Honey CreekGreenbelt
Harrington Ave NENE 16th St
I-405Edmonds Ave NEKirkland Ave NENE Sunset BlvdNE 5th St
NE 7th St
NE 9th St
NE 12th St
McKnight
Middle School
Hillcrest School NorthHighlandsPark
Highlands
Elementary
School
Renton
Technical
College
Sunset
Terrace
Highlands
Park
Highlands
Library
Honey CreekGreenbelt
Harrington Ave NENE 16th St
I-405Edmonds Ave NEKirkland Ave NENE Sunset Blvd7a 87
7
7
5
5
5
1
1
3
4
7a
7a
9
99
9
5
7a
1. Sunset Terrace
- Mixed income redevelopment.
- Integrate with green connections and community facilities.
LEGEND (Incorporating 2009 CIS Recommendations)
2. Planned Action EIS Proposed Study Area Boundary
- Coordinated comprehensive analyses.
- Ongoing integration for the planning and capital development
decisions.
- Incentive to private development.
3. Library at Sunset Terrace (Potential Location)
- Integrated with Third Place.
- Important “anchor tenant” to activate civic gathering and plaza use.
- Prominent “retail frontage” location desired for patron convenience.
4. Third Place
- Public plaza.
- Flexible space for gathering, celebration, outdoor performance and
other events.
- Outdoor performance.
5. Community Gardens (Potential Locations)
- Harrington Park
- Hillside @ Highland Elementary School
- Houser Terrace
- Hillcrest
7. Green Connections / Natural Systems
- Focus on major opportunities for natural stormwater “infrastucture as
amenity” that coincide with priority pedestrian / bike destinations and
links.
7a. Stormwater Detention
- Focus on major opportunities for natural stormwater “infrastructure as
amenities”.
- Distribute an interconnected system of “rainwater parks” in public
properties and redevelopment opportunities.
- Enhance priority bike and pedestrian linkages with natural stormwater
“infrastructure as amenities” elements.
8. Family Village
- Opportunity for integrated reinvestment in housing, education,
recreation and supportive services.
- High-performance design to support healthy, walkable and
neighborhood-friendly community.
9. Better Utilize Recreation and Park Facilities
- Retain and expand a variety of active and passive opportunities for
recreation and activity.
6. Sunset Blvd. Improvements
Hillside Segment
- Western gateway to Sunset Community.
- Enhanced landscape with street trees and median.
- Terrace gardens or Sunset Terrace slope adjacent / expanded R.O.W.
Core Segment
- “Heart / crossroads” of Sunset community
- Intersection at Harrington with special pavement lighting, signals and
crossing treatments.
- Left turn pockets in planted median.
- Distinctive pedestrian-oriented design and operations.
East Segment
- Enhance character and access to retail and business.
- Explore branding and frontage road elements.
- Distinguish regional function and local character.
- Special lighting, planting median, artist contribution.
Sunset CIS Study Area (2009)
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-13 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Additional public comment opportunities occurred within a 45-day Draft EIS comment period extending from December 17, 2010, to January 31, 2011. Following direct mail and posting of notices, RHA held a meeting for Sunset Terrace residents on January 4, 2011, at which more than 25 participants attended. After mailing post cards in English and Spanish, posting notices, and publishing notice in the City’s local newspaper, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission at Renton City Hall on January 5, 2011, at which eight persons spoke. During the 45-day comment period 12 pieces of correspondence were received. Please see Chapter 5 of this Final EIS for more information about the comments and responses.
2.5.3 Renton Housing Authority Functions, Programs, and Project
Planning
2.5.3.1 Renton Housing Authority RHA was established on September 10, 1941, and operates as an independent municipal corporation pursuant to state and federal housing laws. RHA is one of only three public housing authorities in King County, and serves the greater Renton area. Renton is the only city in King County other than Seattle with its own housing authority. The mission of RHA is as follows (Renton Housing Authority 2010a): …to provide decent, quality, affordable housing in a safe environment to people with low incomes who make Renton their home. Through partnerships with our clients, service providers and other groups, we will responsibly increase and enhance our housing programs while providing opportunities for those we serve to become self-sufficient. RHA directly manages 870 dwellings. Section 8 vouchers allocated to RHA allow the lease of an additional 315 dwellings. Section 8 vouchers in use from other Public Housing Authorities include an additional 477 leased units. RHA’s programs receive some of their financial support from HUD. (Renton Housing Authority 2010b.)
2.5.3.2 Sunset Terrace Constructed in 1959, Sunset Terrace is the oldest multifamily public housing complex directly managed by RHA. It contains 100 dwelling units on approximately 7.30 acres. Occupants live in the housing for an average of 5 years. (Gropper pers. comm.). The 100 dwellings units range in size as follows:
20 one-bedroom units,
36 two-bedroom units,
36 three-bedroom units, and
8 four-bedroom units. The units, facilities, and infrastructure are antiquated and the project is dilapidated. See Section 2.6.2 for more information.
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-14 April 2011
ICF 593.10
2.5.4 Environmental Analysis and Review—SEPA and NEPA
2.5.4.1 Joint NEPA/SEPA Process This Draft EIS is a joint NEPA/SEPA document, intended to satisfy requirements of both federal and state environmental statutes. Pursuant to the authority granted by Section 26 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 United States Code [USC] 1437x) in connection with projects assisted under Section 9 of that act (42 USC 1437g), the City is the responsible entity for compliance with NEPA (42 USC 4321) in accordance with 24 CFR 58.1 and 58.4. Compliance with the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is being coordinated with NEPA review. Pursuant to SEPA and implementing rules (RCW 43.21c; Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 197-11), the City is the lead agency for the proposal. Preparation of this Draft EIS is the responsibility of the City. The City has directed the areas of research and analysis that were undertaken and has determined that this document has been prepared in a responsible manner using appropriate methodologies. In addition, the City has coordinated with RHA on preparation of the Draft EIS. The environmental elements analyzed in this Draft EIS were determined through a joint NEPA/SEPA scoping process that extended from August 13 to October 18, 2010. A Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on the EIS scope was published on August 13, 2010, notifying the public of the joint NEPA/SEPA EIS. This notice established a written comment period through September 13, 2010. In addition, a public scoping meeting was held at the Highlands Neighborhood Center on September 1, 2010, where oral and written comments were solicited. Consistent with HUD NEPA rules, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Draft EIS for the Sunset Area Community was published in the Federal Register on September 17, 2010, establishing a 30-day written comment period regarding the scope and contents of the Draft EIS; this federal comment period closed on October 18, 2010. Draft EIS Appendix A contains a summary of the scoping process. As a result of the scoping process, three alternatives and the following 17 areas of environmental review are evaluated in this document.
Aesthetics Air Quality
Earth Energy
Environmental Health Environmental Justice
Historic/Cultural Resources Housing
Land Use Noise
Parks and Recreation Plants and Animals
Public Services Socioeconomics
Transportation Utilities
Water Resources As noted in the Fact Sheet of this Final Draft EIS, this the Draft EIS document is was being circulated to agencies, organizations, and individuals for a 45-day public comment period closing on January 31, 2011. A public meeting on the Draft EIS will also be heldwas held on January 5, 2011. At the conclusion of that period, the City will prepared the this Final EIS. The Final EIS will incorporates
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-15 April 2011
ICF 593.10
refinements to the proposal that occurred after the issuance of the Draft EIS, revisions and clarifications to text contained in the Draft EIS in response to public comments, and responses to written comments and public testimony. The Final EIS will be the environmental document that accompanies Sunset Terrace through the permit processes noted in the Fact Sheet.
2.5.4.2 Previous Environmental Documents and Independent Environmental
Review Prior environmental review was conducted for the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent amendments, including the following documents:
Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance, Harrington Square, September 2, 2003; and
Determination of Non-Significance, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments for Highlands Area, November 6, 2006. When appropriate, prior environmental documents were considered in the preparation of this Draft EIS. At the time of this Draft EIS, RHA is considering the addition of a community and laundry building on its Hillcrest Terrace site. As an independent action, it is undergoing its own NEPA environmental review process. Where information is applicable, it is noted in this Draft EIS.
2.6 Purpose and Need for Proposal This section describes why the proposed land use, housing, and infrastructure changes on the Sunset Terrace redevelopment site and elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area are being pursued, and the goals and objectives that will assist decision makers and the public in determining a preferred alternative. The Sunset Area Community developed in earnest in the early 1940s when the U.S. War Department and RHA built worker housing for manufacturing plants to support World War II. Modest “temporary” homes were constructed with land set aside for schools, shopping, and civic buildings. At the end of the war, RHA sold most of the homes and the agency subsequently built other multifamily public housing and affordable housing in the area, including the Sunset Terrace public housing complex. For several decades, the Sunset Area was a healthy, stable neighborhood. However, times began to change for the Sunset Area as the population and housing aged and young families began to expect larger, newer homes. Homeownership declined, housing maintenance was deferred, social support systems declined, environmental problems increased, and crime escalated. During its heyday in the 1940s and 1950s, a network of public services and facilities including a fire station, schools community centers, and parks and recreation were implemented to support the growing community and are in various stages of remodeling and repair. The City has begun to identify capital investments to improve infrastructure as well as aesthetic and environmental conditions. With a changing population, the City, RHA, and others are reassessing the Planned Action Study Area and how it can be adapted to meet changing community needs and market demand. Sunset Terrace
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-16 April 2011
ICF 593.10
redevelopment could be the catalyst to spur new housing development and redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area. Businesses along NE Sunset Boulevard could also improve and invest more successfully with additional housing growth in the Planned Action Study Area.
2.6.1 Study Area Conditions and Trends In 1942, during World War II, RHA was provided funds from the U.S. Government to build houses for the defense workers needed at Boeing and PACCAR. In March 1942, money was allocated for 500 permanent and 500 demountable dwellings on 135 acres. Soon after the initial purchase, the land acquisition was expanded to 400 acres, and by the time the war came to a close there were a total of 3,000 family units and 864 dormitory beds. Schools, a fire station, a recreation center, and significant infrastructure improvements were built to support this community. Returning veterans and the families of those who had died in the war were given preferential consideration to buy units. By 1951, about 551 units had been sold, with the rest sold over several years, some for as little as $1,500. Some of the demountable units were purchased and moved elsewhere in Renton and the region. (City of Renton 2008a; Conkling pers. comm.) With an influx of families in the decades after World War II, Renton Highlands was a thriving community; however, by the late 1990s the neighborhood was struggling with low investment and deferred maintenance in residential areas and business turnover in the commercial areas (City of Renton 2008a). Conditions have continued to change since 1990. The community is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse, has a greater percentage of the population in poverty, and tenure has shifted further towards rentals. For example, between 1990 and 2000 in Census Tract 254, which includes lands south of NE 12th Street to NE 3rd Street:
the area has become more racially diverse with the percentage of minorities increasing from 14% to 31%,
poverty has increased from about 10% to 16%, and
owner-occupied housing has decreased from 42% to 39%. Currently, the Planned Action Study Area this area contains approximately 1,289 dwellings with an estimated population of 2,978 persons.4
2.6.1.1 Housing and Employment
Based on transportation model land use estimates, current jobs are estimated at approximately 1,306. More information about socioeconomic trends is found in Section 3.9 of this the Draft EIS.
Figure 2-5 shows year built information for all residential and business structures in the Planned Action Study Area. As shown on the map, the majority of residential structures in the Planned Action Study Area were built between 1940 and 1970. Some of the commercial properties were built in that same timeframe, although some are newer.
4 Based on estimates of current dwellings in the Planned Action study area, using King County Assessor Records multiplied by an average household size based on Census Tracts 252 and 254 (2.31). These housing and population estimates exclude Harrington Square. Harrington Square has a total of 217 apartments. The north tower/building with 108 units was completed in 2010 with rentals beginning this summer and the south tower/building with 109 units is scheduled to be completed next year.
NE 12TH ST
NE 7TH S
TEDMONDS AVE NEHARRINGTON AVE NENE SUNSET BLVDMONROE AVE NEBLAINE AVE NENE 16TH STABERDEEN AVE NEOLYMPIA AVE NESUNSET BLVD NENE PARK DR
NE 10TH ST
NE 6TH PL
NE 10TH PL
DAYTON AVE NENE 9TH STLYNNWOOD AVE NEINDEX AVE NEJEFFERSON AVE NENE 8TH PL
NE 11TH ST
NE 17TH PL
KIRKLAND AVE NENE 8TH ST
NE 9TH PL
NE 7TH PL
NE 11TH PL
SUNSET LN NENE 15TH ST
NE 13TH PL
NE 21ST ST
INDEX
PL
NE
NE 20TH ST
GLENWOOD AVE NENE 19TH ST
INDEX CT NENE 17TH STKIRKLAND PL NENE 18TH ST
CAMAS AVE NENE 13TH STNE 6TH CIR FERNDALE CIR NENE 15TH PL
NE 14TH ST
MONROE AVE NEDAYTON AVE NENE 18TH ST
GLENWOOD AVE NENE 9TH ST
NE 20TH ST
INDEX
AVE
NEABERDEEN AVE NENE 21ST STNE 21ST ST
NE 13TH ST
NE 14TH ST
NE 21ST ST
NE 8TH PL
KIRKLAND AVE NESUNSET LN NENE 7TH STNE 8TH ST
NE 1
0
T
H
S
TDAYTON AVE NEINDEX AVE NENE 10TH STKIRKLAND AVE NENE 8TH ST
NE 10TH PLDAYTON AVE NELYNNWOOD AVE NENE 20TH STCAMAS AVE NEFigure 2-5
Age of Structures
Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
Source: City of Renton; King County
00593.10/GIS - Revised: 11/16/2010City Limits
Planned Action Study AreaYear Built
1930 - 1940
1941 - 1950
1951 - 1960
1961 - 1970
1971 - 1980
1981 - 1990
1991 - 2000
After 2000
0 500 1,000
Feet
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-18 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Housing created during the World War II era was intended to be temporary, and many units are reaching the end of their useful life, especially those that have deferred regular maintenance and upkeep. As a result, although the units may be within the means of many households to own or rent, many are not high quality. (City of Renton 2008b.) The City’s land use plans and regulations support opportunities for new and improved housing to revitalize the Planned Action Study Area. The City has also studied means to improve businesses located in the Planned Action Study Area. Based on a 2005 economic study, businesses could be more viable if there was more housing and population that could increase demand and spending for local goods and services. This information helped spur changes in zoning in 2007 to allow for greater density and housing opportunities. Additionally, the City advertised the Renton Small Business Development Center, which offers free and confidential business assistance and is jointly sponsored by the City, Renton Chamber of Commerce, and Renton Technical College. The police department followed up with businesses that had problems with crime, theft, or undesirable customers. The City Council authorized, and the police instituted, additional patrols in this area to address issues related to crime. This also included educational/prevention programs geared to assist businesses and residences. (City of Renton 2008c; Conkling pers. comm.)
2.6.1.2 Capital Investments To improve both housing and business conditions, the City has committed to providing infrastructure improvements in the areas of transportation and mobility (e.g., improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard; sidewalk repairs), drainage, water, sewer, and community services such as parks and recreation and a library. These improvements are intended to improve the visual quality (e.g. boulevard improvements) and address the age and capacity of infrastructure. The City’s Capital Investments Program for 2010 through 2015 identify the following funds for planning and improvements including, but not limited to, the following:
NE Sunset Boulevard Corridor Design ($300,000),
Regional stormwater facility feasibility/preliminary design ($200,000),
Water main ($100,000),
Study area sidewalk repairs ($250,000), and
Capital facility construction ($600,000). These 2010–2015 plans are a continuation of prior capital improvement programs; for example, in 2009, the City completed 4,000 lineal feet of sidewalk in the Sunset Area Community (City of Renton 2010b). The City also completed construction of a new fire station and emergency operations center in 2004.
2.6.2 Sunset Terrace Public Housing Conditions and Trends Sunset Terrace, located in 27 two-story buildings at NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE (Figures 2-1 and 2-4), was constructed in 1959 and requires ever-increasing maintenance. Two major domestic water leaks, estimated to have lost 1 million gallons of drinking water, occurred in 2008 within the antiquated utility infrastructure. Sewer lines regularly clog due to shifted and misaligned piping, tree roots, and lack of capacity flow. Each unit is heated with natural gas, and the street-to-unit lines are old and need replacement. Roof replacements have been deferred and are at
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-19 April 2011
ICF 593.10
their failing point. Entrance door jams are out of square such that weather stripping is an insufficient sealer. The interior tile floors are of a vintage that typically incorporated asbestos. Walls and ceilings are poorly insulated. Gas-fired furnaces and hot water tanks have reached the end of their useful lifespan. Stairwells do not have enough space for tenants to move in queen-size box springs, and banisters have to be cut and repaired to do so. In general, infrastructure serving Sunset Terrace public housing, as well as the rest of the Planned Action Study Area, was built in the 1940’s (e.g. sewer lines), experience leaks in some cases, and have been identified in City plans as a high priority for replacement. As of September 2010, Sunset Terrace housed 279 residents. Of these, 41% (114) were children with an average age of 10 years. The average Sunset Terrace family income was $19,516. The ethnicity was divided evenly among White, Black, and Asian. (Renton Housing Authority 2010c; Gropper pers. comm.) To address the substandard size and quality of the units and to offer more housing choices, RHA intends to create a new mixed-use, mixed-income community, with a 1-to-1 replacement of existing public housing units and additional new affordable and market-rate housing units. Most replacement units would occur in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, and others would occur on other RHA-owned properties in the Planned Action Study Area. In addition, RHA has purchased property in the vicinity of Sunset Terrace to address affordable family and senior5
2.6.3 Proposal Goals and Objectives
housing with support services. Family housing is expected to accommodate households that require larger units and that benefit from proximity to education and social services. Senior citizens make up about 16% of the Planned Action Study Area population. With the aging of the baby boomer generation, RHA and the City foresee a need for additional senior housing with associated elder health services.
The proposal goals and objectives below guided the preparation of Draft EIS Alternatives 2 and 3. The compatibility of the Preferred Alternative with the goals and objectives is analyzed in Final EIS Appendix A.
2.6.3.1 Planned Action Study Area Transformation of private and public properties in the Planned Action Study Area (see Figures 2-1 and 2-4) is expected to meet the Sunset Area Community vision, as expressed in the Highlands Phase II Task Force Recommendations (City of Renton 2008a) and the CIS (City of Renton 2009b).
The Highlands is a destination for the rest of the city and beyond.
The neighbors and businesses here are engaged and involved in the community.
Neighborhood places are interconnected and walkable.
The neighborhood feels safe and secure.
Neighborhood growth and development is managed in a way that preserves quality of life. 5 For the purposes of this EIS, senior housing refers to housing that is occupied by persons 62 or older or that houses at least one person 55 or older in at least 80% of the units and adheres to a policy that demonstrates intent to house persons who are 55 or older.
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-20 April 2011
ICF 593.10
The neighborhood is an attractive place to live and conduct business.
The neighborhood is affordable to many incomes.
The neighborhood celebrates cultural and ethnic diversity. For each of the major components of the proposal, the following specific goals and objectives were developed to be consistent with this vision. 1. Through designation of a Planned Action and infrastructure investments, support and stimulate public and private development. 2. Ensure that redevelopment is planned to conform to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 3. Through the Planned Action and early environmental review, accelerate the transformation of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with mixed-income housing and mixed uses together with places for community gathering. This will also be accomplished in part by using this EIS to achieve a NEPA Record of Decision, which will enable RHA to submit a HUD Demolition and Disposition application in 2011. 4. Ensure that the Planned Action covers environmental review of Sunset Area roadway, drainage, parks and recreation, and other infrastructure improvements, and analyze impacts of anticipated private development in addition to Sunset Terrace. 5. Build on previous City, RHA, and Renton School District efforts and current projects. Leverage relationships and partner with existing community outreach activities and resources. Recognize community desires documented in:
Report and Recommendation of the Highlands Area Citizen’s Zoning Task Force (City of Renton 2006),
Report and Recommendation of the Highlands Phase II Task Force (City of Renton 2008a),
Highlands Action Plan (City of Renton 2009c),
Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy (City of Renton 2009b),
Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan (City of Renton 2009d),
Renton Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan (estimated completion date September 2011),
Utility system plans, and
Library replacement (in process). 6. Create a Great Street6
6 A “Great Street” has numerous characteristics, including: accommodating multiple motorized and nonmotorized modes, exhibiting quality urban design and architecture, offering a variety of interesting activities and uses, promoting environmental sustainability, and incorporating design elements that facilitate maintenance. The CIS suggests that the NE Sunset Boulevard “[i]mprovements would create a gateway and sense of place for the area, as well as enhanced pedestrian safety through traffic calming using improved crossings and landscaped medians.”
on NE Sunset Boulevard, as described in the CIS. Implement the City Complete Streets policy for the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor and the Sunset Area green
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-21 April 2011
ICF 593.10
connections.7
7. Encourage low-impact stormwater management methods and areawide solutions as part of a master drainage plan to support development.
Extend conceptual design of improvements between the Interstate 405 limited access right-of-way and Monroe Avenue NE, and include them in the Planned Action effort.
8. Engage the community in a transparent process using available outreach opportunities and tools successfully used in prior planning efforts. 9. Optimize funding strategies by leveraging partnerships, innovation and sustainable development for a healthy community. Recognize the importance and timing of integrating housing, transportation, infrastructure, expanded economic opportunity, parks and recreation, and the environment.
2.6.3.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment As well as being a key part of the overall Planned Action Study Area revitalization strategy, the Sunset Terrace redevelopment is intended to meet the following goals and objectives.
Replace at a 1:1 ratio the existing 100 Sunset Terrace public housing units: 20 one-bedroom, 36 two-bedroom, 36 three-bedroom, and eight four–bedroom units. Some will be replaced on site and some off site within the Planned Action Study Area.
Provide new affordable and market-rate housing to accommodate a mixed-income community that includes the Sunset Terrace property and nearby RHA- or City-owned sites.
Maximize the visibility and location of the redevelopment as the heart of Sunset Area Community.
Act as a catalyst for improvements and investments in the Sunset Area Community.
Integrate the Sunset Terrace site and residents with the surrounding neighborhood.
Provide amenities to be shared by the Sunset Area Community neighborhood and other Renton residents, employees, and visitors, including a “third place” for all to gather, and park and open space opportunities such as active recreation and community garden space.
Improve the pedestrian realm and connection across NE Sunset Boulevard.
Provide a mix of uses, including residential, open space, and potential for community, civic, retail, or commercial.
2.7 Proposal Alternatives This section provides a description of the Draft EIS aAlternatives 1, 2, and 3, and the Final EIS Preferred Alternative, and identifies key land use and infrastructure elements of each.
7 The term “green connections” refers to public stormwater facility development serving desired new private development as well as public facilities and rights-of-way per the CIS.
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-22 April 2011
ICF 593.10
2.7.1 Description of Proposal Alternatives The proposal includes redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and associated neighborhood growth and revitalization. The objective of the proposal is to promote the redevelopment of public housing, implement infrastructure improvements throughout the Planned Action Study Area, and facilitate planning and environmental review for the Planned Action study area. The proposal is reviewed in terms of three four alternatives.
Alternative 1, No Action. The No Action Alternative represents conditions where Sunset Terrace public housing redevelopment would not occur, and very limited public investment would be implemented in the neighborhood (e.g., some community services but no NE Sunset Boulevard or master drainage plan improvements), resulting in lesser redevelopment across the Planned Action study area. A Planned Action would not be designated. The No Action Alternative is required to be studied under NEPA and SEPA.
Alternative 2. This alternative represents a moderate level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area based on investment in mixed-income housing and mixed uses in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, targeted infrastructure and public services throughout the Planned Action study area, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance.
Alternative 3. This alternative represents the highest level of growth in the Planned Action study area, based on investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with a greater number dwellings developed in a mixed-income, mixed-use style, major public investment in study area infrastructure and services, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance.
Preferred Alternative. This alternative represents neighborhood growth similar to and slightly less than Alternative 3 in the Planned Action Study Area, based on investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with a moderate number of dwellings developed in a mixed-income, mixed-use style oriented around a larger park space and loop road. Other supporting actions include major public investment in study area infrastructure and services and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Each alternative is described in more detail below.
2.7.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 would continue the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications for the Planned Action Study Area, with limited public investment in redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing and in civic and infrastructure improvements in the Planned Action Study Area. With a low level of public investment, private investment in businesses and housing would be limited and would occur incrementally at scattered locations in the Planned Action Study Area. Land use form would largely continue to consist of single-use residential and single-use commercial developments with an occasional mix of uses. The development pattern would begin to transition incrementally from its current suburban pattern to a village center, but, this transition would occur slowly over time due to the relatively low level of investment in public housing redevelopment and Planned Action Study Area improvements. A Planned Action would not be designated and each proposed development would be subject to individual environmental review. Some pedestrian- and transit-oriented development would occur, but it would be the exception rather than the rule, because new development would represent a small portion of the
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-23 April 2011
ICF 593.10
overall Planned Action Study Area. More piecemeal development could preclude opportunities for leveraging and combining strategies among individual projects. In the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, RHA would develop affordable housing and senior housing with supporting elder day health services on two vacant properties, but it would not redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing property. The City would not make major infrastructure improvements. NE Sunset Boulevard would continue to emphasize vehicular mobility with less attention on pedestrian and transit facilities and limited aesthetic appeal (e.g., sparse landscaping). No changes to non-motorized facilities or transit are expected except for those non-motorized improvements identified in the Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan adopted in May 2009 (City of Renton 2009d). Drainage systems would continue as presently configured; any improvements would be localized, incremental, and in compliance with the City’s existing stormwater regulations. The current Highlands Library would be relocated from the Central Subarea to another location in the Planned Action Study Area; since a new site has had not been selected, as of the Draft EIS in December 2010, this alternative assumes a new community services building in the study area of sufficient size to house a library or other social services. Parks and recreation services would largely continue as they exist today.
2.7.1.2 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 provides for a moderate level of mixed-income housing and mixed uses in the Planned Action Study Area, while continuing the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications for the Planned Action Study Area. Infrastructure and public services would be improved in a targeted manner in the Planned Action Study Area. Stand-alone residential uses and local-serving commercial development would continue but would be interspersed with mixed-use development at identified nodes throughout the Planned Action Study Area such as the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and portions of NE Sunset Boulevard. Densities of new development would occur at moderate urban levels that are pedestrian- and transit-oriented. The environmental review process for development would be streamlined under a Planned Action Ordinance. RHA would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community according to a master plan on properties it currently owns; the redevelopment would allow for new public, affordable and market-rate housing accommodating a mixed-income community. All 100 existing public housing units would be replaced at a 1-to-1 ratio; some would occur on the current Sunset Terrace public housing property and some elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area; a duplex would be replaced with affordable townhouse units. An estimated 310 new dwellings would be developed in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, with more moderate-density flats and townhomes at a combined density of 40 units per acre, approximately. New public amenities would include civic and community facilities, which may include a single-use library building with a plaza and/or a community services center/office building, as well as ground-floor retail as required by zoning, and a proposed 0.89-acre park. Senior housing on RHA’s Piha site would include supportive elder day health services. NE Sunset Boulevard would be improved to meet the intent of the City Complete Streets standards (Renton Municipal Code [RMC] 4-6-060). Improvements would largely occur within the current right-of-way and would allow for signal improvements, expanded sidewalks, greater landscaping,
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-24 April 2011
ICF 593.10
new transit shelters and street furniture, pedestrian- and street-level lighting, a bike lane/multi-purpose trail in one direction, consolidated driveways, and a center median with left-turn vehicle storage. No on-street business parking would be available (consistent with current conditions). Natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated in design of streets, parks, and new development. Options for green infrastructure are addressed in Section 2.7.2.4. Active and passive recreation opportunities would be retained and enhanced through coordination between the Renton School District and the City such as through a joint-use agreement. Possible locations for enhancement include a reconfigured Hillcrest Early Childhood Center and North Highlands Park and repurposed public properties or acquired private properties in areas where demand for recreation is anticipated to be higher.
2.7.1.3 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 provides for a high level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area, and also maintains the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications for the Planned Action Study Area. RHA would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community as part of redevelopment of the entire Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea into a mixed-income, mixed-use development according to a master plan. This alternative also includes major public investment in Planned Action Study Area transportation, drainage, sewer, water, cultural, educational, and parks and recreation facilities. This public investment in Sunset Terrace and neighborhood infrastructure and services would catalyze private property reinvestment at a greater scale, and realize the existing permitted zoning uses and density, which would create greater opportunities for market-rate and affordable homeownership and rental housing opportunities, and for local and regional shopping opportunities. Land use patterns would be of an urban intensity focused along the Sunset Boulevard corridor and allow for vertical and horizontal mixed uses. Similar to Alternative 2, environmental review of development would be streamlined with a Planned Action Ordinance. It is expected that, with the Sunset Terrace property and associated properties owned or purchased by RHA, up to 479 additional new units could be created, some of which would be public, affordable, and/or market rate, resulting in a density of approximately 52 units per acre. The existing 100 public housing units would be replaced at a 1-to-1 ratio. Replacement of the public housing units would occur on the current public housing site and elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area; the duplex units located adjacent to Sunset Terrace would be replaced with townhouse units, some affordable and some market-rate. Public amenities would be integrated with the residential development and could include the following: a community gathering space in a vacated Harrington Avenue NE (at Sunset Lane NE); a new recreation/community center and senior center; a new public library in a mixed-use building; a new park and open space; retail shopping and commercial space; and/or green infrastructure. The civic and recreation spaces could act as a “third place.” A “family village” in the North Subarea would provide an opportunity for integrated reinvestment in housing, education, recreation, and supportive services designed to promote a healthy, walkable, and neighborhood-friendly community. NE Sunset Boulevard would be transformed to improve all forms of mobility and to create an inviting corridor through urban design amenities. A wider right-of-way would allow for intersection improvements, bike lanes in both directions, and sidewalks. Improvements to traffic operations at intersections would prioritize transit vehicles; there would also be a planted median with left-turn
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-25 April 2011
ICF 593.10
storage, and u-turns. Improved sidewalks and crosswalks together with streetscape elements such as street trees, transit shelters, street furniture, public art, and lighting would promote walkability. Added bike lanes would promote non-motorized transportation. Natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated in design of streets, parks, and new development. Options for green infrastructure are addressed in Section 2.7.2.4. Active and passive recreation opportunities would be retained and enhanced. For example, the family village concept would allow for blending of education services outside the conventional K-12 spectrum such as early childhood education, the North Highlands Park, and RHA senior housing. Joint-use agreements could be forged between the City and the Renton School District to allow for public use of school grounds for parks and recreation purposes during non-school hours. When public properties are no longer needed for present uses, they could be repurposed for parks and recreation.
2.7.1.4 Preferred Alternative An environmentally preferable alternative that best meets NEPA’s goals to reduce impacts on natural and cultural features is required to be identified, no later than in the Final EIS. Designation of a preferred alternative is optional under SEPA. The City and RHA have identified an environmentally preferred alternative within the range of the Draft EIS Alternatives 1 through 3. The Preferred Alternative provides for:
mixed-use growth and transit and nonmotorized transportation improvements that result in regionally beneficial air quality and energy effects,
a drainage master plan that promotes green infrastructure and improves water quality,
expansion of parks and recreation facilities, and
greater housing and job opportunities. Key features are identified below. The Preferred Alternative provides for growth in the Planned Action Study Area similar to but less than Alternative 3, while maintaining the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications for the Planned Action Study Area. New growth in the neighborhood would be about 7% less than under Alternative 3. This reflects the preferred conceptual plan for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and refinements of a land capacity analysis presented in Final EIS Appendix B. Similar to Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative includes redevelopment of Sunset Terrace, as well as major public investment in Planned Action Study Area transportation systems;, drainage, sewer, and water systems; and cultural, educational, and parks and recreation facilities. This public investment in Sunset Terrace and neighborhood infrastructure and services would catalyze private property reinvestment at a greater scale, and realize the existing permitted zoning uses and density, which would create greater opportunities for market-rate and affordable homeownership and rental housing opportunities, and for local and regional shopping opportunities. Land use patterns would be of an urban intensity focused along the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor and would allow for vertical and horizontal mixed uses. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, environmental review of development would be streamlined with a Planned Action Ordinance.
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-26 April 2011
ICF 593.10
RHA would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community as part of redevelopment of the entire Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. It would be redeveloped into a mixed-income, mixed-use development according to a master plan, featuring a “central” park of about 2.65 acres and a loop road. With a larger park space, the density of the Sunset Terrace development would be lower than Alternatives 2 and 3 at 33 units per acre, though some density would shift outside the subarea to other portions of the Planned Action Study Area (see further discussion below). Public amenities would be integrated with the mixed-use development and could contain the following: a new park space, including over a segment of Harrington Avenue NE (at Sunset Lane NE) to be vacated; a reconfigured Sunset Lane NE along the library that could be used as a plaza; an elder day health center; a new public library in a single-purpose building; retail shopping and commercial space; and green infrastructure. The civic and recreation spaces could act as a “third place.” Similar to Alternative 3, a family village in the North Subarea would provide an opportunity for integrated reinvestment in housing, education, recreation, and supportive services designed to promote a healthy, walkable, and neighborhood-friendly community. NE Sunset Boulevard would be transformed, similar to under Alternative 3, to improve all forms of mobility and to create an inviting corridor through urban design amenities. Improvements to traffic operations at intersections would prioritize transit vehicles; there would also be a planted median with left-turn lanes at intersections and two high-volume, mid-block driveway locations. Improved sidewalks and crosswalks, together with streetscape elements such as street trees, transit shelters, street furniture, public art, and lighting, would promote walkability. A multiuse trail along the west side of NE Sunset Boulevard would promote nonmotorized transportation. In addition to the multiuse trail on the west side of NE Sunset Boulevard, an eastbound bike lane would run from Edmonds Avenue NE up the hill to the City’s bike route on NE 10th Street. Natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated into the design of streets, parks, and new development, similar to under Alternative 3. Several residential streets (designated as green connections) in the neighborhood would be transformed to improve pedestrian mobility, mitigate stormwater impacts (both for water quality and flow reduction), and create an inviting corridor to enhance the neighborhood. In addition to the green connections projects, the City would implement regional detention/retention improvements to provide advance mitigation for future increases in impervious area that could result from redevelopment. Options for green infrastructure are addressed in Section 2.7.2.4. Active and passive recreation opportunities would be retained and enhanced. This would include the 2.65-acre central park at Sunset Terrace. Due to the relocation and consolidation of Sunset Court Park at Sunset Terrace as well as the proposed vacation of a portion of Harrington Avenue NE, the central park space is enlarged compared to other alternatives to better meet the needs of the increased population of the neighborhood; with relocation, Sunset Court Park property would then redevelop with housing units. Additionally, the family village would allow for blending of education services outside the conventional K–12 spectrum such as early childhood education, the North Highlands Park, and RHA senior housing. Joint-use agreements could be forged between the City and the Renton School District to allow for public use of school grounds for parks and recreation purposes during non-school hours. When public properties are no longer needed for present uses, they could be repurposed for other public purposes, such as parks and recreation.
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-27 April 2011
ICF 593.10
2.7.2 Comparison of Features of Proposal Alternatives The following features of each alternative are compared in Tables 2-2 through 2-5:
neighborhood land use,
potential Sunset Terrace redevelopment,
NE Sunset Boulevard improvements, and
stormwater management. Each of these features, as well as other public service and utility improvements, is further described in following the tables. The three levels of shading correspond to the three Draft EIS alternatives, as shown below. The thick outline corresponds with the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative; thick border around features of Alts 1, 2, or 3
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-28 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Table 2-2. Alternative Development Matrix—Neighborhood Land Use
Land Use Form and Location Housing Employment Public Facilities, Services & Infrastructure Development Pattern Supports Interconnection/ Walkability Alternative 1: No Action Stand-alone commercial: clustered complexes Multiplex Redevelopment Small Retail Redevelopment Civic Uses - e.g. Community Center, Senior Center, and/or Library on single purpose sites No improvement
Primarily residential: urban scale, stacked flat and/or townhouses with structured parking. Vacant Infill Development Retail Lot Consolidation Civic Uses - - e.g. Community Center, Senior Center, and/or Library integrated into mixed use development Pedestrian-oriented development: minimize setbacks, promote public realm, structured parking Horizontal Mixed use Homeownership Opportunities Shopping Center Redevelopment New parkland to support increased residential capacity. Transit-oriented development: density supports, transit integrated Vertical Mixed Use Rental Opportunities Local serving retail & services Parks & Recreation: Integrated with Master Planned Development Urban Intensity Focused Around Key Nodes, e.g. Sunset Terrace, Institutions Market Rate Regional serving retail & services Parks & Recreation: Optimize City/School Facilities
Urban Intensity Focused Along Corridor: Sunset Boulevard Affordable Parks & Recreation: Integration with Regional Drainage Facilities Mixed Income Land Use Pattern Supports Low Impact Development, Green Streets Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Education - Spectrum of Ages Family Village Redevelopment Integrated Social Services Alternative 2: Mid-Range Intensity Improvements Stand-alone commercial: clustered complexes Multiplex Redevelopment Small Retail Redevelopment Civic Uses - e.g. Community Center, Senior Center, and/or Library on single purpose sites No improvement
Primarily residential: urban scale, stacked flat and/or townhouses with structured parking. Vacant Infill Development Retail Lot Consolidation Civic Uses - - e.g. Community Center, Senior Center, and/or Library integrated into mixed use development Pedestrian-oriented development: minimize setbacks, promote public realm, structured parking Horizontal Mixed use Homeownership Opportunities Shopping Center Redevelopment New parkland to support increased residential capacity. Transit-oriented development: density supports, transit integrated Vertical Mixed Use Rental Opportunities Local serving retail & services Parks & Recreation: Integrated with Master Planned Development Urban Intensity Focused Around Key Nodes, e.g. Sunset Terrace, Institutions Market Rate Regional serving retail & services Parks & Recreation: Optimize City/School Facilities
Urban Intensity Focused Along Corridor: Sunset Boulevard Affordable Parks & Recreation: Integration with Regional Drainage Facilities Mixed Income Land Use Pattern Supports Low Impact Development, Green Streets Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Education - Spectrum of Ages Family Village Redevelopment Integrated Social Services Alternative 3: High Intensity Improvements Stand-alone commercial: clustered complexes Multiplex Redevelopment Small Retail Redevelopment Civic Uses - e.g. Community Center, Senior Center, and/or Library on single purpose sites No improvement
Primarily residential: urban scale, stacked flat and/or townhouses with structured parking. Vacant Infill Development Retail Lot Consolidation Civic Uses - - e.g. Community Center, Senior Center, and/or Library integrated into mixed use development Pedestrian-oriented development: minimize setbacks, promote public realm, structured parking Horizontal Mixed use Homeownership Opportunities Shopping Center Redevelopment New parkland to support increased residential capacity. Transit-oriented development: density supports, transit integrated Vertical Mixed Use Rental Opportunities Local serving retail & services Parks & Recreation: Integrated with Master Planned Development Urban Intensity Focused Around Key Nodes, e.g. Sunset Terrace, Institutions Market Rate Regional serving retail & services Parks & Recreation: Optimize City/School Facilities
Urban Intensity Focused Along Corridor: Sunset Boulevard Affordable Parks & Recreation: Integration with Regional Drainage Facilities Mixed Income Land Use Pattern Supports Low Impact Development, Green Streets Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Education - Spectrum of Ages Family Village Redevelopment Integrated Social Services
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-29 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Table 2-3. Alternative Development Matrix—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
Housing Development Urban Form Sunset Terrace Amenities Street Network, Pedestrian Realm Non-Residential Development Alternative 1: No Action Infill on vacant RHA properties No improvement No improvement No improvement None 1:1 Public Housing replacement (100 units) Focus density along Sunset Blvd New open space, e.g. active, garden, other Improved intersection and crossing at Sunset Blvd and Harrington Neighborhood Retail
New affordable and market rate units (250-350) Focus density at Sunset Blvd/ Harrington intersection and north on Harrington New rainwater park Green connection/ bioswale along Harrington New stand alone Highlands Library at Sunset Terrace New affordable and market rate units (450-550) Use townhomes to transition to residential neighborhood Third Place Plaza with civic or community building New hillside path on Sunset Blvd east of Harrington New Mixed-Use Highlands Library at Sunset Terrace Neighborhood residential infill Disperse townhomes and apartments Third Place incorporated into new retail Close portion of Harrington as green street/open space Office Build Sunset Terrace site to zoning capacity Flexible Community Services Center Transpo Hub: improved bus stops, carsharing, and bike storage
Community Center Alternative 2: Mid-Range Intensity Improvements Infill on vacant RHA properties No improvement No improvement No improvement None 1:1 Public Housing replacement (100 units) Focus density along Sunset Blvd New open space, e.g. active, garden, other Improved intersection and crossing at Sunset Blvd and Harrington Neighborhood Retail
New affordable and market rate units (250-350) Focus density at Sunset Blvd/ Harrington intersection and north on Harrington New rainwater park Green connection/ bioswale along Harrington New stand alone Highlands Library at Sunset Terrace
New affordable and market rate units (450-550) Use townhomes to transition to residential neighborhood Third Place Plaza with civic or community building New hillside path on Sunset Blvd east of Harrington New Mixed-Use Highlands Library at Sunset Terrace
Neighborhood residential infill Disperse townhomes and apartments Third Place incorporated into new retail Close portion of Harrington as green street/open space Office
Build Sunset Terrace site to zoning capacity Flexible Community Services Center Transpo HubConnections: improved bus stops, carsharing, and bike storage
Community Center Alternative 3: High Intensity Improvements Infill on vacant RHA properties No improvement No improvement No improvement None 1:1 Public Housing replacement (100 units) Focus density along Sunset Blvd New open space, e.g. active, garden, other Improved intersection and crossing at Sunset Blvd and Harrington Neighborhood Retail
New affordable and market rate units (250-350) Focus density at Sunset Blvd/ Harrington intersection and north on Harrington New rainwater park Green connection/ bioswale along Harrington New stand alone Highlands Library at Sunset Terrace New affordable and market rate units (450-550) Use townhomes to transition to residential neighborhood Third Place Plaza with civic or community building New hillside path on Sunset Blvd east of Harrington New Mixed-Use Highlands Library at Sunset Terrace Neighborhood residential infill Disperse townhomes and apartments Third Place incorporated into new retail Close portion of Harrington as green street/open space Office
Build Sunset Terrace site to zoning capacity Flexible Community Services Center Transpo Hub: improved bus stops, carsharing, and bike storage
Community Center
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-30 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Table 2-4. Alternative Development Matrix—NE Sunset Boulevard Traffic Capacity and Operations Improvements Pedestrian Walkability Community Based Design Amenities Bikes Transit Enhancements Access Management Measures Alternative 1: No Action No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements Optimize traffic signal timing Pedestrian supportive signals (countdown heads and audible signals) Preserve existing street trees Bike route signage New shelters Consolidate driveways
Left turn storage lengthened to meet design year LOS Improved side street sidewalk connections to intersections Plant new street trees in landscape strip along corridor Narrow inside lanes, widen outside lane to accommodate bikes Special design of transit zones throughout the corridor including paving, shelters, street furniture.
Curbed median to restrict left turns from driveways
Traffic signal interconnection and coordination Pedestrian refuges in median Use special paving for crosswalks Narrow lanes, stripe a bike lane (requires WSDOT approval) Special concrete bus pad in roadway at transit stops Directional left-turn pockets mid-block Widen to add Business Access/Transit Lane Narrow lanes and reduce crossing distances Use special paving within intersections Provide multi-use trail along the corridor. New local transit service connecting across SR900 to Community Center/Library Provide U-turn accommodations Hillside walk paved path and planting Way finding and signage Multi-use trail along project corridor Incorporate Art Realign skewed intersections and reduce crosswalk distances Garden / Art Trellis
Comfortable separation of pedestrians from vehicle traffic (landscape buffer) Benches, trash and recycling receptacles
Widen sidewalks to meet Complete Streets minimums (8 ft sidewalks and 8 ft landscape strips)
Improve corridor roadway lighting
Special pedestrian scale lighting Surveillance cameras for increased security and/or emergency response.
Alternative 2: Mid-Range Intensity Improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements Optimize traffic signal timing Pedestrian supportive signals (countdown heads and audible signals) Preserve existing street trees Bike route signage New shelters Consolidate driveways
Left turn storage lengthened to meet design year LOS Improved side street sidewalk connections to intersections Plant new street trees in landscape strip along corridor Narrow inside lanes, widen outside lane to accommodate bikes Special design of transit zones throughout the corridor including paving, shelters, street furniture.
Curbed median to restrict left turns from driveways
Traffic signal interconnection and coordination Pedestrian refuges in median Use special paving for crosswalks Narrow lanes, stripe a bike lane (requires WSDOT approval) Special concrete bus pad in roadway at transit stops Directional left-turn pockets mid-block Widen to add Business Access/Transit Lane Narrow lanes and reduce crossing distances Use special paving within intersections Provide multi-use trail along the corridor. New local transit service connecting across SR900 to Community Center/Library Provide U-turn accommodations Hillside walk paved path and planting Way finding and signage Multi-use trail along project corridor Incorporate Art Realign skewed intersections and reduce crosswalk distances Garden / Art Trellis
Comfortable separation of pedestrians from vehicle traffic (landscape buffer) Benches, trash and recycling receptacles
Widen sidewalks to meet Complete Streets minimums (8 ft sidewalks and 8 ft landscape strips)
Improve corridor roadway lighting
Special pedestrian scale lighting Surveillance cameras for increased security and/or emergency response.
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-31 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Traffic Capacity and Operations Improvements Pedestrian Walkability Community Based Design Amenities Bikes Transit Enhancements Access Management Measures Alternative 3: High Intensity Improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements Optimize traffic signal timing Pedestrian supportive signals (countdown heads and audible signals) Preserve existing street trees Bike route signage New shelters Consolidate driveways
Left turn storage lengthened to meet design year LOS Improved side street sidewalk connections to intersections Plant new street trees in landscape strip along corridor Narrow inside lanes, widen outside lane to accommodate bikes Special design of transit zones throughout the corridor including paving, shelters, street furniture.
Curbed median to restrict left turns from driveways
Traffic signal interconnection and coordination Pedestrian refuges in median Use special paving for crosswalks Narrow lanes, stripe a bike lane (requires WSDOT approval) Special concrete bus pad in roadway at transit stops Directional left-turn pockets mid-block
Widen to add Business Access/Transit Lane [Removed from Alternative 3]
Narrow lanes and reduce crossing distances Use special paving within intersections Provide multi-use trail along the corridor. New local transit service connecting across SR900 to Community Center/Library Provide U-turn accommodations
Hillside walk paved path and planting Way finding and signage
Multi-use trail along project corridor Incorporate Art
Realign skewed intersections and reduce crosswalk distances Garden / Art Trellis
Comfortable separation of pedestrians from vehicle traffic (landscape buffer) Benches, trash and recycling receptacles
Widen sidewalks to meet Complete Streets minimums (8 ft sidewalks and 8 ft landscape strips)
Improve corridor roadway lighting
Special pedestrian scale lighting
Surveillance cameras for increased security and/or emergency response.
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-32 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Table 2-5. Alternative Development Matrix—Stormwater Management Parcel-Based Stormwater Requirements Sunset Terrace Stormwater Techniques Conveyance Improvements in ROW Flow Control BMPs in ROW Water Quality Treatment BMPs in ROW Open Space/Sub-regional Facilities Alternative 1: No Action Meet Code Requirements On-site Meet Code Requirements On-site No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements Incentivize Green Stormwater Infrastructure Retrofits Downspout Disconnection Rebuild Curb & Gutter Permeable Pavement Sidewalks Media Filter Vaults Rainwater Parks (e.g. rain gardens) Require Green Stormwater Infrastructure where Infiltration is Feasible
Raingardens for Residential Units Bioretention Swale/Planters with Curb Openings Bioretention Swales Bioretention planters Regional Detention Ponds
Require Green Stormwater Infrastructure including non-infiltrating practices
Permeable Sidewalks Build/Rebuild Storm Drain Pipes Bioretention Planters with Detention Rain Gardens in medians Underground Detention
Allow Fee In-lieu of Providing On-site Detention Cisterns for Residential Units Rain Gardens in medians Permeable Pavement Water Quality Treatment Sportsfield/Playfield Detention (detention during wet season only) Green Parking Lot Standards Green Roofs Develop narrow street standards to reduce impervious coverage Allow parcel stormwater treatment within ROW New Rainwater Park at Sunset Terrace Harrington Street Green Connection Rainwater Harvesting for Irrigation Use Rainwater Harvesting Alternative 2: Mid-Range Intensity Improvements Meet Code Requirements On-site Meet Code Requirements On-site No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements Incentivize Green Stormwater Infrastructure Retrofits Downspout Disconnection Rebuild Curb & Gutter Permeable Pavement Sidewalks Media Filter Vaults Rainwater Parks (e.g. rain gardens) Require Green Stormwater Infrastructure where Infiltration is Feasible
Raingardens for Residential Units Bioretention Swale/Planters with Curb Openings Bioretention Swales Bioretention planters Regional Detention Ponds
Require Green Stormwater Infrastructure including non-infiltrating practices
Permeable Sidewalks Build/Rebuild Storm Drain Pipes Bioretention Planters with Detention Rain Gardens in medians Underground Detention
Allow Fee In-lieu of Providing On-site Detention Cisterns for Residential Units Rain Gardens in medians Permeable Pavement Water Quality Treatment Sportsfield/Playfield Detention (detention during wet season only) Green Parking Lot Standards Green Roofs Develop narrow street standards to reduce impervious coverage Allow parcel stormwater treatment within ROW New Rainwater Park at Sunset Terrace Harrington Street Green Connection Rainwater Harvesting for Irrigation Use Rainwater Harvesting Alternative 3: High Intensity Improvements Meet Code Requirements On-site Meet Code Requirements On-site No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements Incentivize Green Stormwater Infrastructure Retrofits Downspout Disconnection Rebuild Curb & Gutter Permeable Pavement Sidewalks Media Filter Vaults Rainwater Parks (e.g. rain gardens; including regional facilities) Require Green Stormwater Infrastructure where Infiltration is Feasible
Raingardens for Residential Units Bioretention Swale/Planters with Curb Openings Bioretention Swales Bioretention planters Regional Detention Ponds
Require Green Stormwater Infrastructure including non-infiltrating practices
Permeable Sidewalks Build/Rebuild Storm Drain Pipes Bioretention Planters with Detention Rain Gardens in medians Underground Detention
Allow Fee In-lieu of Providing On-site Detention Cisterns for Residential Units Rain Gardens in medians Permeable Pavement Water Quality Treatment Sportsfield/Playfield Detention (detention during wet season only) Green Parking Lot Standards Green Roofs Develop narrow street standards to reduce impervious coverage Allow parcel stormwater treatment within ROW New Rainwater Park at Sunset Terrace Harrington Street Green Connection ` Rainwater Harvesting for Irrigation Use Rainwater Harvesting
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-33 April 2011
ICF 593.10
2.7.2.1 Neighborhood Land Use To determine future growth scenarios for the next 20 years, a land capacity analysis was prepared for each alternative using assumptions similar to the King County Buildable Lands methodology. See Draft EIS Appendix B and Final EIS Appendix B. Generally, the analysis considers acreage that is vacant or that may redevelop due to low floor area ratios and/or age of the structure as well as the relative value of the property according to King County Assessor’s data. Based on retaining the current land use plan and zoning while varying the location and mix of dwellings and jobs, the alternatives produce different future growth estimates. Each would affect different amounts of property.
Alternative 1 assumes that about 16% (35 acres) of the 213 net acres of Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop.
Alternative 2 assumes that about 32% (68 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop.
Alternative 3 assumes that approximately 40% (84 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop.
The Preferred Alternative assumes that approximately 40% (84 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop. The number of dwelling units and jobs under each alternative is compared in Table 2-6. Alternative 1 provides the least growth and Alternative 3 the most growth, with Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative in the middle. The Sunset Mixed Use Subarea would include the most residential and employment growth under all four three alternatives.
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-34 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Table 2-6. Summary of Land Capacity—Net Additional Growth above Existing—2030 Subarea Dwelling Units/Jobs Alternative 11 Alternative 21 Alternative 31 Preferred Alternative Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Dwelling units 168–1752 310 479 266 Jobs 493 164 182 79–1178 Sunset Mixed Use Dwelling units 1,109 1,052 1,509 1,481 Jobs 410–652 1,728 2,875 2,802 Central, North and South Dwelling units 206 296 518 592 Jobs 152–213 273 273 273 Total Study Area Net Growth Dwelling units43 1,483–1,490 1,658 2,506 2,339 Population54 3,430-3,442 3,830 5,789 5,403 Employment SF 251,700 844,351 1,310,113 1,247,444–1,259,9448 Jobs6 611–9147 2,165 3,330 3,154–3,1928 1 The Draft EIS technical analysis for transportation, water, and sewer models studied two more net units in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under Alternatives 1 and 3, and a slightly different mix of dwellings and jobs in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under Alternative 2 (12 more dwellings and 38 fewer jobs). These differences are negligible and represent a less than 2% difference across the Planned Action Study Area. 2 The lower range represents proposed concepts on RHA’s two vacant sites based on funding applications currently in process. The upper range represents the results of a land capacity analysis. 3 The estimate is based on a 90%/10% housing/employment split between residential and service uses; the housing/employment share based on example proposed developments prepared for RHA’s two vacant sites in the Sunset Terrace subarea. 4 Includes 217 dwellings and approximately 8 jobs associated with Harrington Square. The first building was constructed in Summer 2010, and the other is under construction to be completed in spring/summer 2011. 5 Applies an average household size of 2.31, an average of two census tracts 252 and 254. 6 Includes retail, service, and education jobs. 7 The lower figure shown is based on a commercial employment rate of 400 square feet per employee for retail and service jobs. If applying a commercial employment rate of 250 square feet per employee, the employment would equal the upper range. This latter figure is more similar to Renton Transportation Zone assumptions. 8 The lower figure assumes less commercial/service space; whereas, the higher includes more commercial/service space. The Final EIS studies the lower number of jobs (38 fewer) in the technical analysis for transportation, water, and sewer models though this is considered a negligible difference from the upper range (less than 2%) and is captured in the range of the EIS analysis for all alternatives. These increases in dwellings and jobs associated with the Planned Action are illustrated in Figures 2-6 through 2-8.
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-35 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Figure 2-6. Additional Growth by Alternative—2030—Revised
Figure 2-7. Additional Dwellings under Each Alternative by Subarea—2030—Revised
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-36 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Figure 2-8. Additional Permanent Jobs under Each Alternative by Subarea—2030—Revised
Table 2-7 shows total population, housing, and jobs adding net growth in Table 2-6 to existing development. As described above, Alternative 1 provides for the least growth and Alternative 3 the most. The Preferred Alternative is similar to but slightly less than Alternative 3 (about 5% less considering total growth).
Table 2-7. Existing and Total Growth—2030 Alternative Planned Action Study Area Total Population Dwellings Jobs Existing1 2,978 1,289 1,306 Alternative 1 6,417 2,778 2,220 Alternative 2 6,808 2,947 3,471 Alternative 3 8,768 3,796 4,636 Preferred Alternative 8,381 3,628 4,460–4498 1 Dwellings are based on King County Assessor 2010 data. Population estimated using a household size of 2.31, an average of census tracts 252 and 254. Jobs are based on transportation model estimates for 2006.
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-37 April 2011
ICF 593.10
2.7.2.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea In the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, Alternative 1 would allow infill growth on vacant land, whereas Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative would transform the subarea into a mixed-use, mixed-income development. The conceptual plans for Alternatives 2 and 3 are shown in Figures 2-9 and 2-10. Figure 2-11 presents the conceptual plan for the Preferred Alternative. It should be noted that for all alternatives, the plans—including land uses, building footprints, circulation layouts, and other features—are conceptual. As planning progresses from conceptual to more detailed building and construction plans, there may be variations from the concepts (for example, see Final EIS Appendix C for variants of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment plans that are similar to the Preferred Alternative and within the range of EIS alternatives). Future refined plans will be considered consistent with the alternatives studied in this EIS provided the features are in the range of the alternatives and associated environmental analysis. Alternative 1 represents a lower bookend of this range and Alternative 3 the upper end of this range, with Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative in the middle of the range. Alternative 1 would only develop buildings 1 through 4 and 11, as shown on Figure 2-9. The anticipated land use mix, dwelling unit types, community amenities, and phasing and relocation are described for each alternative below.
Land Use Mix While housing would be the predominate use in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under all alternatives, the alternatives also include mixed-use elements to varying degrees, such as civic uses and in some cases retail and office. Alternative 1 proposes predominantly apartment-style dwellings with some townhouse dwellings on RHA’s western vacant site (Edmonds-Glenwood site) and senior housing on RHA’s eastern vacant site (Piha site). See Figure 2-9 for locations of these sites. Enriched senior housing services, including elder day health for off-site patients, would be part of an approximately 12,500-square-foot facility on the ground floor of the eastern vacant site. The existing Sunset Terrace public housing complex would remain in place with no changes. Alternative 2 proposes apartment-style dwellings along NE Sunset Boulevard west of Harrington Avenue NE, mixed commercial and civic uses with residential dwellings east of Harrington Avenue NE, a central court of townhomes, and a 38,605-square-foot (0.89-acre) public park to the central-north. An office building is planned at 11,000 square feet, which could accommodate public or private offices (e.g., RHA headquarters, if moved). Retail space is assumed at 2,500 square feet. Community service uses are estimated at 26,000 square feet in the central part of the subarea and could house a variety of community or social services and/or a library; another 12,500 square feet would house the senior enriched services described for Alternative 1. About 88 public housing units would be replaced on the existing Sunset Terrace public housing site and 12 would be replaced on another site(s) in the Planned Action Study Area.
1
2 3
4
6
7
8Sunse
t
B
l
vd
.
NEEN .evA notgnirraHN
E
1
0
t
h
S
t
.Glennwood Ave. NE9
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
16
17
5
19
Figure 2-9
Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Concept—Alternative 2
Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
0’ 100’ 200’ 300’ 400’
N
Multifamily: Flats
Multifamily: Townhouses
Civic/Community Services
Retail/Commercial/Mixed-Use
Active park/open space
Passive open space
Passive open space: plaza
RHA’s Edmonds-Glenwood site RHA's Piha site
RHA’s Sunset Terrace
Figure 2-10
Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Concept—Alternative 3
Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
Figure 2-11
Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Concept—Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
Multifamily: Flats
Multifamily: Townhouses
Civic/Community Services
Retail/Commercial/Mixed-Use
Active park/open space
Passive open space
Passive open space: plaza Note: The central open space will be designed and
programmed at a later date. Considerations would
include active and passive recreation, community
gardens, and community gathering areas.
0’ 100’ 200’ 300’ 400’
N
Existing buildings to remain
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-42 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 3 would maximize the number of residential dwellings and apartment-style units along the western boundary where topography allows more views, townhomes in the central area close to the open space, mixed-use retail and housing at the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE and civic uses, which could include a community center, senior center, and/or library (total space 42,000 square feet), west of Harrington Avenue NE. An open space of about 0.25 acre would be located in an open space provided in the Harrington Avenue NE right-of-way (if vacated) at Sunset Lane NE. Most of the 100 public housing units would be replaced within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and some would be replaced elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area, though the ratio has not been determined at this time. The Preferred Alternative would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community into a mixed-income, mixed-use development according to a master plan, which features a central park of 2.65 acres and a loop road. Key features of Sunset Terrace redevelopment are identified below:
The central park would be larger than proposed under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, because it assumes the relocation of Sunset Court Park and vacation of Harrington Avenue NE for one block, along with additional land purposed for park space, to create a larger more versatile space.
The Highlands Library would be relocated from its present site along NE 12th Street to NE Sunset Boulevard on a single-purpose site, and the space would be enlarged to 15,000 square feet.
The loop road would occur along Sunset Lane NE and would encircle the park. Along the library and mixed-use building space, the lane could be specially paved and serve as a plaza for special events.
Housing styles would include flats in mixed-use and residential-only buildings and townhomes. It is expected that, with the Sunset Terrace property and associated properties owned or purchased by RHA, up to 266 additional new units could be created, would be public, affordable, and/or market rate. The total 376 dwellings would result in a density of approximately 33 units per acre.
The existing 100 public housing units would be replaced at a 1-to-1 ratio. Replacement of the public housing units would occur on the current public housing site and elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area. In particular, some potential sites for replacement housing include Sunset Court Park (as the park space would be relocated at Sunset Terrace), RHA-owned property along Kirkland Avenue NE, and the existing library site once it is relocated though another possible use for the library site would be for agency use (e.g., offices, maintenance).
The duplex units located adjacent to Sunset Terrace would be replaced with townhouse units, some affordable and some market-rate.
Public amenities would be integrated with the residential development and could include the following: a central park including a vacated Harrington Avenue NE (at Sunset Lane NE), an elder day health center, a new public library along a Sunset Lane NE that would occasionally serve as an active plaza, commercial retail or service space, and green infrastructure. The park and library/plaza as well as the central park could act as a “third place.”
RHA’s Piha site and Edmonds-Glenwood site would develop with senior and family housing respectively, similar to Alternatives 1 and 2.
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-43 April 2011
ICF 593.10
RHA’s Piha site would contain senior housing and elder day health services taking access from the “loop road;” the location near the central park and library would provide recreation opportunities for senior residents.
RHA’s Edmonds-Glenwood site would contain family housing in both townhouse and flat styles. The layout of the Edmonds-Glenwood site places the higher-density flats along Edmonds Avenue NE, where higher-density already exists, and the lower-density townhomes along Glenwood Avenue NE more closely matching the character of duplexes. There are two access points for the combined townhome/flat concept: Edmonds Avenue NE for the primary access to the flats and Glenwood Avenue NE for primary access by townhome residents. The Preferred Alternative would include site design measures to limit pass-through travel from Edmonds Avenue NE to Glenwood Avenue NE (e.g., traffic calming, parking, and access design).
Housing Alternative 1 for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would affect the least amount of property and would focus on infilling vacant land and redevelopment of one duplex on the Piha and Edmonds-Glenwood sites. Alternative 2 would alter the entire Sunset Terrace public housing site, as well as vacant acres, and a duplex, on the Piha and Edmonds-Glenwood sites. Alternative 3 would result in private property reinvestment in townhomes to the north of the Sunset Terrace site in addition to redevelopment of the entire Sunset Terrace public housing site, and the Piha and Edmonds-Glenwood sites. The Preferred Alternative would redevelop the same properties as Alternative 3. The number of acres redeveloped would differ among alternatives as would the density:8
Alternative 1 would redevelop approximately 170 to 177 dwelling units (a net increase of 168 to 175 dwelling units) on 3.1 net acres, resulting in a density of approximately 55 dwelling units per acre.
Alternative 2 would redevelop approximately 412 dwelling units (a net increase of 310 dwelling units) on 10.3 acres, resulting in a density of approximately 40 dwelling units per acre.
Alternative 3 would redevelop approximately 589 dwelling units (a net increase of 479 dwelling units) on 11.3 acres, resulting in a density of approximately 52 dwelling units per acre.
The Preferred Alternative would redevelop approximately 376 dwellings (a net increase of 266 dwelling units) on 11.3 acres resulting in a density of about 33 dwelling units per acre. Whereas Alternative 1 would provide for affordable housing only, Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative would provide public, affordable and market-rate housing.
Alternative 1 would provide affordable dwelling units, but no public or market-rate dwellings units.
Alternative 2 would provide approximately 21% public, 55% affordable, and 24% market-rate dwelling units.
8 The acres and resulting density are calculated across sites and include portions of the property devoted to non-residential uses including civic and commercial areas.
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-44 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 3 would provide approximately 74% affordable and 26% market-rate dwelling units (amount of replacement public housing on site not determined; would be a portion of “affordable” percentage).
The Preferred Alternative would provide approximately 78% public and affordable, and 22% market-rate dwelling units. Lastly, all alternatives would provide flats and townhomes to differing degrees, and housing would potentially include both rental and home ownership, but the portion is not yet known.
Alternative 1 would provide 170 units: eight townhomes and 162 flats.
Alternative 2 would provide 412 units: 40 townhomes and 372 flats.
Alternative 3 would provide 589 units: 32 townhomes and 557 flats.
The Preferred Alternative would provide 376 units: approximately 35 townhomes and 341 flats.
Phasing and Relocation Replacement housing would not be needed for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under Alternative 1, because the existing Sunset Terrace public housing would remain intact; however RHA has committed to providing relocation assistance for a duplex it owns on one lot associated with the Edmonds-Glenwood site (see Figure 2-9 for the location of this site). For Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative, RHA has committed to replacement housing at a 1:1 ratio, consistent with the existing proportion of units by number of bedrooms. Such replacement housing could occur on site and/or off site, as described above. Under any alternative, approval of necessary permits identified in the Fact Sheet (located behind the cover letter) for this Draft EIS and the availability of public financing will determine the timing and type of development activities in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. A key permit approval is the HUD demolition/disposition application associated with the redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community under Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative. Redevelopment of the subarea under Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative would be phased, with vacant sites developing first followed by redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community. During the time replacement housing is under construction, Section 8 vouchers would be used to relocate tenants, as necessary. Relocated tenants would also be offered spaces in the new development. A general sequence of events is summarized below for Alternatives 2 and 3 and is subject to change based on funding opportunities: 1. HUD Demolition/Disposition process completed for Sunset Terrace public housing community: approximately 2011. 2. Buildout of vacant RHA-owned sites completed: anticipated for the Edmonds-Glenwood site between 2011 and 2012 and for the Piha site in 2012. (See Figure 2-9 for the locations of these properties.) 3. Sunset Terrace replacement housing funded and constructed: two phases, with the first phase in 2012-2013 and the second phase in 2014-2015. 4. Sunset Terrace tenants relocated with potential Section 8 voucher strategy during construction phases: relocation starting in 2012-2013 with phasing determined by construction schedule.
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-45 April 2011
ICF 593.10
5. Offer spaces in the new developments on the vacant RHA-owned sites and/or at Sunset Terrace, as applicable, to relocated tenants: post-construction. The Preferred Alternative proposes to redevelop the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in five phases (as illustrated in Appendix C): 1. HUD Demolition/Disposition process: a. Completed for Phase I library and mixed use site east of Harrington Avenue NE: approximately 2011. b. Other Demolition/Disposition applications will precede Phases II through IV. 2. Phase I: Development of family and senior housing on vacant sites as well as relocation of library and development of mixed use buildings: a. Buildout of vacant RHA-owned sites (identified on Figure 2-11): 1) Glenwood portion of Edmonds-Glenwood site anticipated for completion first: 2011–2012. 2) Edmonds portion of Edmonds-Glenwood site and the Piha site: 2012. b. Between Sunset Lane NE and NE Sunset Boulevard east of Harrington Avenue NE, proposed library site and mixed use site vacated and demolished and initiation of construction in 2012. 3. Phase II: Installation of public park, in three sub-phases, dates to be determined: a. Area east of Harrington Avenue NE developed as a park. b. Harrington Avenue NE vacation and development of park. c. Glenwood Avenue NE re-routing, and townhomes developed north of park. 4. Phase III: Development of townhomes west of central park, date to be determined. 5. Phase IV: Development of remaining multifamily and mixed-use buildings fronting NE Sunset Boulevard west of Harrington Avenue NE, date to be determined. The phasing is a best-case scenario based on potential funding, and phases and timing are subject to change based on available resources. RHA public housing tenants would be relocated, such as with a potential Section 8 voucher strategy during construction phases. Post construction, RHA would offer public housing tenants replacement housing in the new developments on the vacant RHA-owned sites, or at Sunset Terrace, or at off-site locations in the Planned Action Study Area, as applicable.
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-46 April 2011
ICF 593.10
2.7.2.3 NE Sunset Boulevard Improvements Alternative 1 would include no improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard. Alternative 2 would comply with the spirit of the City Complete Streets standards and improve all modes of travel on NE Sunset Boulevard with minimal changes to the current right-of-way (up to 5 feet of acquisition). Alternative 3 would fully comply with the City Complete Streets standards and would require the most right-of-way acquisition (up to 13 feet of acquisition) to accommodate planned multimodal improvements along NE Sunset Boulevard. A sample cross section representing Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 is included in Figure 2-121 and represents a location west of Harrington Boulevard NE in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea vicinity. The Preferred Alternative would include full compliance with the City’s Complete Street ordinance with some modification in the portion of Sunset where topography prevents full implementation. At Edmonds Avenue NE and Harrington Avenue NE, the Preferred Alternative would keep the existing curb and 5-foot-wide sidewalk (no planter), and right-of-way would be acquired from the north side (Sunset Terrace) up to 14 feet. East of 10th Street NE, there appears to be sufficient right-of-way width along NE Sunset Boulevard to accommodate the Complete Street cross section, though in some places parking improvements encroach into the existing right-of-way. See Figure 2-13 for Preferred Alternative cross sections.
Figure 2-12
NE Sunset Boulevard—Cross Sections West of Harrington Avenue NE—Alternatives 1, 2, and 3
Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
Figure 2-13
NE Sunset Boulevard—Cross Sections West of Harrington Avenue NE—Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
Section 1: Adjacent to Existing Wall between Edmonds and Harrington
Section 2: Between Harrington Ave and NE 10th ST
Section 3: Between NE 10th ST and NE 12th ST
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-49 April 2011
ICF 593.10
In addition to changes along NE Sunset Boulevard, Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative would alter circulation patterns by closing Harrington Avenue NE for one block in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Additionally, both Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative would alter cross sections of some local streets to create green connections. (See Section 2.7.2.4 below.) The potential sidewalk, crosswalk, bicycle, transit, and landscaping improvements, and associated rights-of-way proposals are shown on Figures 2-142 and, 2-153, and 2-16 for Alternative 2, Alternative 3, and the Preferred Alternative, respectively. In addition to changes along NE Sunset Boulevard, the Preferred Alternative would improve transit amenities along NE Sunset Boulevard to include expanded bus zones in both directions of travel. Bus zones and existing bus stops could include shelters with adequate lighting and street furniture. Transit stops are located adjacent to pedestrian and bicycle facilities, which encourages the use of alternative modes of travel. Special pavement in the roadway would clearly identify transit stops on NE Sunset Boulevard. Pedestrian-scale lighting would improve pedestrian safety and walkability. Sidewalk connections from NE Sunset Boulevard to side streets would be improved, strengthening the connectivity between the residential areas and NE Sunset Boulevard. To improve safety for pedestrians crossing the roadways, the Preferred Alternative includes the use of special paving at crosswalks and intersections. Special paving can more clearly identify pedestrian areas and alert drivers to proceed with caution, which can contribute to a safer pedestrian environment. Pedestrian-supportive signals such as count-down heads and audible signals would be provided to improve safety for pedestrians crossing the roadways at signalized intersections. Other pedestrian-level design amenities such as benches, trash receptacles, way-finding signs, and art would be incorporated to encourage pedestrian activity in the Planned Action Study Area.
2.7.2.4 Stormwater Management Alternative 1 assumes no change to public stormwater systems in the Planned Action Study Area. Private development would be required to meet City standards for stormwater management including RMC 4-6-030 addressing the Surface Water Utility. Technical requirements for the design of drainage facilities are contained in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County 2009), adopted by the City with amendments (City of Renton 2010c). Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative both include a stormwater strategy that integrates the following palette of options distributed throughout the parcels, rights-of-way, and rainwater parks in public open spaces, all of which would support, sustain, and promote the redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area.
Private property options include rain gardens, porous pavement, downspout disconnection, and cisterns.
Green connections include roadside rain gardens, porous pavement, bioretention planters, and conveyance swales.
Rainwater parks include rain gardens, porous pavement, underground storage beneath active or passive recreation areas, hydraulically functional landscaping. Alternative 2 represents a “lead-by-example” approach that integrates stormwater improvements to retrofit the publically owned areas for improved water quality, flow reduction and groundwater recharge. Connected rights-of-way would be reconstructed with permeable sidewalks, bioretention
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-50 April 2011
ICF 593.10
swales and roadside rain gardens in curb bulbs to treat runoff from within the right-of-way and improve pedestrian access and livability. Opportunities include integrating hydraulically functional landscaping and stormwater improvements (e.g., rain gardens and porous surfacing) in public open spaces and facilities to demonstrate sustainable stormwater alternatives; integration of natural infrastructure is not intended to reduce the amount of or access to useable active recreational space. The approach for private property would be to primarily reduce barriers to integrating green stormwater infrastructure. Alternative 3 includes many similar elements as Alternative 2; however, it includes opportunities to expand the stormwater infrastructure within public rights-of-way and spaces to enhance the capacity to mitigate for potential private redevelopment. The enhanced capacity would serve both as advance mitigation for stormwater impacts of the existing developed area (realizing benefits earlier) and as an incentive for redevelopment by providing off-site stormwater mitigation. Opportunities include more aggressive application of green stormwater and conveyance infrastructure in the rights-of-way to receive runoff from redeveloped properties. Additional opportunities include integrated multipurpose regional stormwater facilities with public open spaces that integrate stormwater treatment and runoff reduction within the same open spaces that serve the public; integration of natural infrastructure is not intended to reduce the amount of or access to useable active recreational space. The Preferred Alternative is similar to Alternative 3 and falls within the bookends of Alternatives 1 and 3. Several residential streets (designated as green connections) in the neighborhood would be transformed to improve pedestrian mobility, mitigate stormwater (both for water quality and flow reduction), and create an inviting corridor to enhance the neighborhood. Harrington Avenue NE, including portions of NE 16th and NE 9th streets, has been identified as a high priority green connection project that would provide enhanced pedestrian connectivity between Hillcrest Terrace, McKnight Middle School, Sunset Terrace (including the relocated King County Library), Highlands Elementary, and Highlands Community Center. This corridor would be enhanced by narrowing through-traffic lanes to calm traffic, create wide planter areas to accommodate large trees and rain gardens to mitigate stormwater runoff, and create wider sidewalks (Figure 2-17). This project would be implemented as a public infrastructure retrofit project pending available funds. The remaining green connections projects would likely be implemented as revised roadway standards to require incremental redevelopment of the frontage as redevelopment occurs (constructed either by future developers or the City, depending on availability of funds). In addition to the green connections projects, the City will implement regional detention/retention improvements to provide advance mitigation for future increases in impervious area that could result from redevelopment. Locations of the regional facilities would include the western margin of the newly created park at Sunset Terrace and/or the northern corner of Highlands Park (beyond the outfield of the existing baseball/softball field).
Figure 2-14
NE Sunset Boulevard—Alternative 2 Conceptual Layout
Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
Crosswalk
Landscaping
Median/center striping
Curbs/sidewalks
Land striping
Figure 2-15
NE Sunset Boulevard—Alternative 3 Conceptual Layout
Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
Crosswalk
Landscaping
Median/center striping
Curbs/sidewalks
Land striping
Figure 2-16
NE Sunset Boulevard—Preferred Alterna ve Conceptual Layout
Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
Crosswalk
Landscaping
Median/center striping
Curbs/sidewalks
Lane striping
3/14/2011
Sunset Boulevard
Stormwater Preferred Alternative
Collector with Left Turn Lane
Section 1: Collector Arterial, 2-Lane with Shared Roadway
Section 2: 4-Lane Collector Arterial, No Parking
NE 16th Alley / Harrington Alley NE / Jefferson Alley NE
8’8’
SIDEWALKPLANTER*
APPROXIMATE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY
78’ PROPOSED ROAD SECTION
8’
SIDEWALK RAIN-GARDEN
16’
83’
* RAIN GARDEN AND PARKING/PLANTER SECTION, ALTERNATE STREET SIDES
8’8’
APPROXIMATE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY
8’
SIDEWALK
10’8’10’
STORMWATER
PLANTER
STORMWATER
PLANTER
SIDEWALK
83’
82’ PROPOSED ROAD SECTION
6’
DRIVE
LANE
4’ 4’
16’.
RIGHT OF WAY
POROUS CONCRETE
OR PAVERS
POROUS CONCRETE
OR PAVERS
1’ CONCRETE
RIBBON
1’ CONCRETE
RIBBON
RAIN-GARDEN
10’11 ’8’8’8’8’ 9’
SIDEWALKSIDEWALKPARKINGPLANTER
APPROXIMATE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY
78’ PROPOSED ROAD SECTION
5’
PARKING*
LANE
8’
BIKE
10’5’
LANE BIKE
10’5’
LANEBIKE
10’5’
LANE BIKE
10’5’
SB
LANE
BIKE
10’5’
NB
LANE
BIKE
CENTER
TURN
LANE
NB
LANE
SB
LANE
Figure 2-17
Green Connec ons—Preferred Alterna ve
Sunset Area Community Planned Ac on Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-58 April 2011
ICF 593.10
The use of flow control BMPs and other low impact development standards would be implemented where feasible and allowed by the City in accordance with City surface water design standards and other standards. The regional detention/retention improvements and green connections funding is dependent upon the City obtaining grants from various sources and the availability of City funds. There also is the option that the green connections and the regional detention/retention improvements could be funded as part of the redevelopment projects.
2.7.2.5 Other Public Service and Utility Improvements
Parks and Recreation Currently, the Planned Action Study Area contains approximately 22 acres of parks and two neighborhood centers. Renton School District sites also provide recreation and sports fields, although these are dedicated for school use and there is no formal agreement with the City for use of school facilities during non-school-hours. The alternatives represent different growth levels and demand for parks and recreation and different opportunities to meet demand.
Alternative 1. No change to parks and recreation facilities would occur.
Alternative 2. Parks and recreation opportunities include a 0.89-acre park and a community center at Sunset Terrace, and a reconfigured Hillcrest Early Childhood Center site and North Highlands Park. In addition, there are publicly owned properties, vacant properties, potential pedestrian connections between blocks, a sidewalk network, and proposed green connections that may allow for improvement and/or acquisition to create a coordinated “pocket park” system (Figure 2-184). In addition, opportunities are identified in this Draft EIS analysis regarding joint-use agreements between the City and Renton School District, repurposing of public properties, or acquisition of private properties in areas where demand for recreation is anticipated to be higher (see Section 4.15).
Alternative 3. Parks and recreation opportunities include a linear park in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea within the Harrington Avenue NE right-of-way (if vacated) as well as a community center, a joint parks and recreation/education/housing concept at the “family village” (as envisioned and described in the Sunset Area CIS; See Figure 2-153), and green connections that connect a “necklace” of “pocket” parks (see Figure 2-148). Similar to Alternative 2, opportunities are identified in the Draft EIS analysis regarding joint-use agreements, repurposing of public properties and/or acquisition of private properties in areas where demand for recreation is anticipated to be higher (see Section 4.15).
Preferred Alternative. Parks and recreation opportunities include a 2.65-acre central park at Sunset Terrace and the corresponding relocation of Sunset Court Park. The Hillcrest Early Childhood Center site would also be reconfigured with North Highlands Park. In addition, publicly owned properties, vacant properties, potential pedestrian connections between blocks, a sidewalk network, and proposed green connections could allow for improvement and/or acquisition to create a coordinated “pocket park” system (Figure 2-18). Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, opportunities are identified in the EIS analysis regarding joint-use agreements, repurposing of public properties and/or acquisition of private properties in areas where demand for recreation is anticipated to be higher (see Section 4.15).
NE 12TH ST
EDMONDS AVE NEMONROE AVE NEHARRINGTON AVE NENE SUNSET BLVDI-
4
0
5
F
RW
Y SUNSET BLVD NENE 6TH ST
NE 7TH STABERDEEN AVE NERAMPNE 9TH ST
NE PARK DR BLAINE AVE NENE 16TH ST
NE 6TH PLOLYMPIA AVE NE126TH AVE
SE
NE 23RD PL
NE 5TH PL
NE 21ST ST
NE 23RD ST
MONTEREY AVE NENE 10TH ST
NE 24TH ST
DAYTON AVE NENE 22ND PL
NE 10TH LN
QUEEN AVE NELYNNWOOD AVE NESHELTON AVE
NEINDEX AVE NENE 7TH PL
WINDSOR W
AY
NE
NE 8TH PL
NE 1
7
T
H
P
L
KIRKLAND AVE NENE 10TH CT
NE 8TH ST
C
AM
A
S
A
V
E
N
E
NE 9TH PL
NE 22ND ST
NE 11TH PLJEFFERSON AVE NENE 3RD ST
NE 15TH ST
NE 6TH CT
NE 13TH PL HI
L
L
C
R
E
S
T
LN
N
E
INDEX PL NENE 20TH ST
PIERCE AVE NEREDMOND AVE
NE
NE 19TH ST
NE 4TH CTLINCOLN AVE NENE 5TH STNE 5TH CT
NE 18TH ST
NE 24TH CT
LINCOLN PL NENE 23RD CTNE 21ST ST
NE 22ND ST
LYNNWOOD AVE NENE 8TH PL
NE 21ST ST
SHELTON AVE NEQUEEN AVE NENE 9TH ST
INDEX AVE NENE 6TH PL
NE 8TH STCAMAS AVE NEMONTEREY AVE NERAMPKIRKLAND AVE NEKIRKLAND AVE NEOLYMPIA AVE NEINDEX
PL
NE
NE 23RD ST
DAYTON AVE NENE 7TH S
TNE 6TH
PLMONROE AVE NENE 16TH ST
NE 5TH PL
NE 10TH ST
SHELTON AVE NENE
5
T
H
P
L
INDEX
AVE
NECAMAS AVE NENE 19TH ST
Figure 2-18
Public and Open Spaces
Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
Source: City of Renton
00593.10/GIS - Revised: 11/30/2010City Limits
Planned Action Study Area
Parcels
Green Connections
Sidewalks
Pedestrian Connection
OpportunityPublic and Open Spaces
School
Renton Housing Authority
City of Renton
0 500 1,000
Feet
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-60 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Sections 3.15 and 4.15 of this the Draft EIS address current parks and recreation conditions and potential impacts of the alternatives on parks and recreation in the Planned Action Study Area, respectively. Draft EIS Section 4.15 also identifies opportunities to accommodate park needs including possible acquisition of acreage and construction of amenities to meet the increased population needs. Section 3.15 of this Final EIS addresses potential impacts of the Preferred Alternative on parks and recreation in the Planned Action Study Area.
Schools The Planned Action Study Area includes potential changes to education facilities, which are studied cumulatively with other Planned Action proposals. The Renton School District proposes to upgrade school facilities in the Planned Action Study Area as follows:
Alternative 1. Hillcrest Early Childhood Center would be reconstructed consistent with the
Renton School District Six Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2009–2015 (Renton School District and Greene Gasaway Architects 2008:26–28), and would equal approximately 30,000 square feet similar to its current size. Planned improvements to McKnight Middle School would add approximately 10 classrooms.
Alternative 2. In the North Subarea, Hillcrest Early Childhood Center would be rebuilt as an early childhood education center serving the entire school district. The facility would equal 65,000 square feet in size. Uses would also include social services and recreation. To maximize the limited land area, redevelopment of Hillcrest Early Childhood Center would occur in conjunction with redevelopment of the North Highlands Park allowing shared parks and recreation facilities between the two properties. See Figure 2-195 for the location of Hillcrest Early Childhood Center and the North Highlands Park facilities. Other changes to McKnight Middle School would be as described for Alternative 1.
Alternative 3. In the North Subarea, the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center site would be combined with the North Highlands Park and RHA senior housing complex site and redeveloped to form a “family village” that offers education for a spectrum of ages, including early childhood education as well as recreation, and family housing. See Figure 2-2016 which shows a visualization of what a family village could look like. Other changes to McKnight Middle School would be as described for Alternative 1.
Preferred Alternative. The family village concept is the same as for Alternative 3. Appendix D contains other variations of the family village that are within the range of the EIS Alternatives.
Community Services Various community services are anticipated under all alternatives and would generally be focused on the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Services could include a senior health services, social services in office or community center space, and/or library services. The current Highlands Library would move to a new location within the city limits, possibly within the Planned Action Study Area. The alternatives assume redevelopment of the library site, and potential new locations for community services, which could include a library. Community service assumptions for the alternatives are as follows.
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-61 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Alternative 1 would include a 12,500-square-foot or larger space for senior health services including elder day health in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea on RHA’s eastern vacant property and 10,000 to 15,000 square feet of space that could house a library or social services located on a single-purpose site likely in an area well served by circulation and transit, such as in the Sunset Mixed Use Subarea.
Alternative 2 would locate community service space in stand-alone and mixed-use structures, totaling about 38,500 square feet, in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. The spaces would potentially house a senior health services similar to Alternative 1, library, and/or social services.
Alternative 3 would locate a senior center, community center, and, potentially, a library, totaling 42,500 square feet, within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, most of which would occur in a mixed-use format.
The Preferred Alternative would include a 12,500-square-foot space, or larger, for senior health services including elder day health on RHA’s vacant Piha site, a 15,000-square-foot library, and 9,600 square feet of community service or retail space.
Utilities All alternatives would require improvements to utilities, particularly water and sewer to serve the new development in terms of fire flow, water use, and wastewater collection and treatment, with Alternative 1 creating less demand for service, Alternative 3 the greatest, and Alternative 2 within the range. See Draft EIS Sections 3.17 and 4.17 regarding Alternatives 2 and 3 and Final EIS Section 3.17 regarding the Preferred Alternative.
NE 5th St
NE 7th St
NE 9th St
NE 12th St
McKnight
Middle School
Hillcrest
Elementary
School North
Highlands
Park
Highlands
Elementary
School
Renton
Technical
College
Sunset
Terrace
Highlands
Park
Highlands
Library
Honey Creek
Greenbelt
Harrington Ave NENE 16
t
h
S
t
I-405Edmonds Ave NEKirkland Ave NENE Sunset BlvdNE 5th St
NE 7th St
NE 9th St
NE 12th St
McKnight
Middle School
Hillcrest
Elementary
School
North
Highlands
Park
Highlands
Elementary
School
Renton
Technical
College
Sunset
Terrace
Highlands
Park
Highlands
Library
Honey Creek
Greenbelt
Harrington Ave NENE 16
t
h
St
I-405Edmonds Ave NEKirkland Ave NENE Sunset Blvd0 600 1200 1800 2400 feet
Publicly owned land (City of Renton, Renton Housing
Authority, Renton School District, US/Federal Gov’t, and ROW)
Figure 2-19
Publicly Owned Sites in Planned Acon Study Area
Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
Houser TerraceHouser Terrace
Evergreen
Terrace
Evergreen
Terrace
Renton Fire
Station 12
Renton Fire
Station 12
Golden Pines
Apartments
(RHA)
Golden Pines
Apartments
(RHA)
Renton
Housing
Authority
Renton
Housing
Authority
Artist’s drawing of the Family Village concept at Hillcrest
Children’s play area
Interior green
pedestrian corridors/
walkways
Rainwater park/
passive recreation
eld
Community facilites complex:
Early childhood education
center
Senior center
Daycare
Community services
Conference rooms
Fitness, arts, etc.
Plaza/ oudoor seating
Community garden
Remote, shared
parking lot
Senior housing
Green Connection in
16th Street R.O.W.
Cottage/ courtyard
green housing
Kirkl
a
n
d
A
v
e
N
E
NE 16th St
Note: This is a conceptual rendering from the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy, and thus subject to change.
Figure 2-20
Alterna ve 3—Family Village Concept
Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-64 April 2011
ICF 593.10
2.7.2.6 Planned Action Ordinance The City is proposing to adopt a Planned Action Ordinance applicable to the Planned Action Study Area pursuant to SEPA. A Planned Action Ordinance, if adopted, would exempt future projects from SEPA threshold determinations or EISs when they are consistent with the Sunset Area Community EIS assumptions and mitigation measures. According to WAC 197-11-164, a Planned Action is defined as a project that:
is designated a Planned Action by ordinance;
has had the significant environmental impacts addressed in an EIS;
has been prepared in conjunction with a comprehensive plan, subarea plan, master planned development, phased project, or with subsequent or implementing projects of any of these categories;
is located within an urban growth area;
is not an essential public facility; and
is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative, the City would formally designate the Planned Action consistent with the Planned Action study area in Figure 2-1. The proposal alternatives studied in this Draft EIS implement projects identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Sunset Area CIS. The proposal is located within the Renton Urban Growth Area, and proposal elements are not essential public facilities as defined by RCW 36.70A.200. Although a SEPA threshold determination would not be required for future projects within the Planned Action Study Area that meet specific description and parameters, the City would follow adopted procedures to review proposed projects within the Planned Action Study Area through the land use review process associated with each project to determine its impacts and impose any appropriate development conditions. SEPA rules at WAC 197-11-168 require the ordinance designating the Planned Action to include the following:
a description of the type of project action being designated as a Planned Action,
a finding that the probable significant environmental impacts of the Planned Action have been identified and adequately addressed in an EIS, and
the identification of mitigation measures that must be applied to a project for it to qualify as a Planned Action. Following the completion of the EIS process, the City would designate the Planned Action by ordinance. The ordinance would identify mitigation, as described in this Draft EIS, which would be applicable to future site-specific actions. Mitigation could include requirements that would apply to all development in the Planned Action Study Area as well as measures that would apply on a case-by-case basis. A draft Planned Action Ordinance is included in Draft EIS Appendix C; a revised draft Planned Action Ordinance tailored to the Preferred Alternative is included in Final EIS Appendix E.
City of Renton
Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-65 April 2011
ICF 593.10
2.7.2.7 Cumulative Growth Cumulative impacts are those which result from the incremental impact of the proposals when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The analysis in this Draft EIS describes the individual impacts of conceptual plans in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, as well as civic and infrastructure improvements (e.g., NE Sunset Boulevard improvements), in the context of cumulative growth patterns expected over the next 20 years in the Planned Action Study Area. This growth in the study area is examined in the context of the City’s adopted plans that included growth allocations citywide.
2.7.2.8 Conceptual Plans and Revisions The EIS provides a range of neighborhood growth patterns, Sunset Terrace redevelopment concepts, circulation improvements, drainage concepts, parks and recreation features, utility improvements, and other elements. The EIS alternatives present a range of growth, service, and infrastructure options, with Alternatives 1 and 3 representing the lower and upper bookends, respectively, and Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative falling in between. In the future, the City, other agencies such as RHA, and private property owners may consider land use, public service, and infrastructure projects that fall within the range of the EIS alternatives. Because the EIS analysis covers activities within this range, it can be applied to these future projects if they are consistent with the range of EIS assumptions.
2.8 Benefits and Disadvantages of Deferring
Implementation Deferring implementation of the proposals would allow for residential and commercial development to occur in a more scattered manner in the study area over a longer period of time due to lack of substantive civic and infrastructure benefits. In the absence of a catalyst for redevelopment and neighborhood revitalization, economic development would occur more gradually. Benefits of new housing, employment, and civic uses—such as replacement of antiquated and dilapidated housing, greater cohesion of residents, opportunities for healthy active lifestyles, and greater local employment—at Sunset Terrace and in the Planned Action Study Area would not occur. Stormwater improvements would be made in a piecemeal fashion and would not achieve net improvements in stormwater treatment compared to a master plan approach. NE Sunset Boulevard would continue to lack access management and aesthetic appeal. Less mixed use development would provide less reduction in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions at a regional level. Each development would undergo separate environmental review, which would lengthen permit review time. Deferring implementation could result in marginally less traffic and would expose fewer new residents to noise for developments located along the roadway.
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-1 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Chapter 3
Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
This chapter provides a brief impact analysis of the Preferred Alternative described in Chapter 2. The review follows the same structure as Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS where the impacts of Draft EIS Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 were reviewed. Specifically, the environmental topics considered in this chapter include the following: 3.1 Earth 3.2 Air Quality 3.3 Water Resources 3.4 Plants and Animals 3.5 Energy 3.6 Noise 3.7 Environmental Health 3.8 Land Use 3.9 Socioeconomics 3.10 Housing 3.11 Environmental Justice 3.12 Aesthetics 3.13 Historic/Cultural 3.14 Transportation 3.15 Parks and Recreation 3.16 Public Services 3.17 Utilities For each of the seventeen environmental elements, the review is organized as follows:
Impacts specific to the Preferred Alternative are described for the Planned Action Study Area and the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and compared with Draft EIS alternatives as appropriate; and
Mitigation measures specific to the Preferred Alternative are described where applicable. Mitigation measures common to all alternatives are described in detail in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS and summarized in Draft and Final EIS Chapter 1 but are not repeated here. A comparison of the Preferred Alternative with Draft EIS Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 is provided in Final EIS Chapter 1.
3.1 Earth Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.
3.1.1 Planned Action Study Area Potential impacts of all three alternatives discussed in the Draft EIS and the Preferred Alternative are similar and discussed in the subsections below.
3.1.1.1 Construction Impacts Potential earth-related construction impacts include the following:
increases in erosion due to soil disturbance;
requirements for import and export of earth materials; and
increased risk of landsliding due to soil disturbance, changing drainage, or temporarily oversteepening slopes.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-2 April 2011
ICF 593.10
The significance of these potential impacts is judged to be relatively low under all of the alternatives for the Planned Action Study Area, including the Preferred Alternative, for the following reasons.
A series of best management practices (BMPs) has been developed and codified over the last decade that minimizes the potential for both erosion and for eroded material to be transported to waterways where it can cause harm.
A relatively small proportion of the Planned Action Study Area is considered either steep slope or erosion hazard (see Draft EIS Figures 3.1.2 and 3.1.3). Much of the existing soils are also glacial outwash materials with a low erosion potential.
With minimal planning and protection, the outwash soils in most of the Planned Action Study Area could be reused as backfill, minimizing import and export requirements. As noted in the Section 3.1 of the Draft EIS, the outwash limits (see Draft EIS Figure 3.1-1) are believed to be somewhat understated.
The landslide hazard areas cover a relatively small proportion of the Planned Action Study Area. Both the glacial outwash and till soils are generally strong and of low concern regarding slope instability. The significance of these potential impacts is even lower for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea because it contains no geologic hazards and is underlain by glacial outwash materials, which have one of the highest potentials for structural reuse of any geologic deposit within the Puget Sound area.
3.1.1.2 Operation Impacts The primary earth-related impact of operations is the active seismicity of the Planned Action Study Area. The active seismicity means that inhabited structures, including buildings, bridges, and water tanks, would have to be designed to withstand seismic loading. Relative to many other areas within Renton and King County, the Planned Action Study Area is well suited to handling the effects of an earthquake. The soils are not subject to liquefaction, which is the primary cause of damage to buried utilities and other civil infrastructure. Expensive building foundation systems to provide support against settlement or lateral spreading of liquefiable soils would not be needed. The only differential seismic impact in the Planned Action Study Area is that steeper slopes and landslide hazard areas (see Draft EIS Figures 3.1.2 and 3.1.3) would have a slightly higher risk of movement during a seismic event than other areas.
3.1.1.3 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts The primary indirect effect is that the major steep slope, erosion, and landslide hazard areas within the Planned Action Study Area extend beyond the boundaries (see northeast corner in Draft EIS Figure 3.1.2 and 3.1.3). Development on the slope above (inside) the study area boundary could increase the risk of erosion and landsliding downslope (outside) of the study area. The risk of this impact is relatively low because current development regulations limit development in these hazard areas and their buffers. The primary earth-related cumulative effect is associated with the same steep slope, erosion, and landslide hazard area discussed above. Intensive development around this hazard area outside of the Planned Action Study Area by other projects is not currently anticipated but could increase the risk of erosion and landsliding. As explained above, the risk of this impact is low.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-3 April 2011
ICF 593.10
3.1.1.4 Comparison of Preferred Alternative Impacts with the Alternatives in
the Draft EIS As noted above, the earth-related impacts of all of the alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, are of low significance. Because the potential impacts are low for all alternatives, a comparison is not necessary and would be subject to conjecture. Mitigation would be the same as indicated in the Draft EIS. See Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of mitigation measures from the Draft EIS.
3.1.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The potential impacts associated with any of the alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are of slightly less significance than those described for the Planned Action Study Area because there are no geologic hazards within the subarea, and the underlying glacial outwash soils have the highest potential for reuse within the Planned Action Study Area and the lowest potential for erosion of most soil types in the Puget Sound area.
3.1.3 Mitigation Measures There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative.
3.2 Air Quality Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. For each geographic level, temporary construction impacts are addressed as well as long-term operational impacts of land use activities and local traffic increases. In addition, indirect and cumulative impacts of the alternatives’ contribution to regional growth, travel, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are addressed.
3.2.1 Planned Action Study Area The Preferred Alternative is expected to have population and employment growth within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3. Because the amount of redevelopment would fall within the bookends of the Draft EIS alternatives, air quality impacts from construction activities, commercial operations, vehicle tailpipe emissions, GHG emissions, and outdoor air toxics, as well as impacts on air quality attainment status, would be similar to those described in the Draft EIS. Although temporary, localized dust and odor impacts could occur during construction activities. However, the regulations and mitigation measures described in the Draft EIS are adequate to mitigate any adverse impacts anticipated to occur as a result of growth in the study area.
3.2.1.1 Emissions from Vehicle Travel As shown in Table 3.2-1, the forecast population and the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) under the Preferred Alternative are higher than they are under Alternative 2 but slightly lower than
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-4 April 2011
ICF 593.10
they are under Alternative 3. The net increases in VMT forecast as a result of the Preferred Alternative are inconsequential compared with Puget Sound regional VMT and its implied impact on regional emissions and photochemical smog. Therefore, regional air quality impacts caused by population growth and transportation emissions in the study area would not be significant.
3.2.1.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The annual GHG emissions calculated for the Preferred Alternative are based on the future land uses listed in Table 3.2-2. As listed in Table 3.2-3, the Preferred Alternative represents a net reduction of 3,907 metric tons per year of regional GHG emissions, which is within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3. Therefore, similar to the impacts under the alternatives studied in the Draft EIS, GHG impacts in the study area caused by the Preferred Alternative would not be significant.
Table 3.2-1. Planned Action Study Area Contribution to Forecast 2030 Regional Vehicle Miles
Traveled Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative Population 6,417 6,808 8,768 8,381 Planned Action Study Area daily VMT1 146,949 155,903 200,787 191,925 Puget Sound region daily VMT2 92,738,880 Contribution to regional VMT 0.16% 0.17% 0.22% 0.21% VMT = vehicle miles traveled 1 Daily VMT calculations are based on 22.9 VMT per capita, the average daily VMT in the Puget Sound area (Puget Sound Regional Council 2010). 2 Puget Sound regional VMT totals for 2030 for the Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Area (Puget Sound Regional Council 2009).
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-5 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Table 3.2-2. Assumed Land Use and Population Growth for Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations–Planned Action Study Area
Land Use Type Existing
Net Increase under Alternatives Compared with Existing Conditions1 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Study Area
Puget Sound Region Outside Study Area Study Area
Puget Sound Region Outside Study Area Study Area
Puget Sound Region Outside Study Area Study Area
Puget Sound Region Outside Study Area Single-family housing (dwelling units) 117 11 0 10 0 10 0 4 6 Multifamily housing in large building (dwelling units) 783 1,446 723 1,549 620 2,169 0 2,006 215 Multifamily housing in small building (dwelling units) 389 33 295 99 228 327 0 329 -2 Education (1,000 square feet) 223.6 30.6 26.4 57.0 0 57.0 0 57.0 0 Retail (other than mall) (1,000 square feet) 352.3 90.7 385.6 300.2 176.1 476.3 0 457.1 19.2 Service (1,000 square feet) 226.3 130.4 246.4 487.1 289.7 776.8 0 745.8 31.0 Population 2,978 3,440 2,351 3,830 1960 5,790 0 5,404 387 1. These numbers are rounded, compared with values in Chapter 2, accounting for slight differences.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-6 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Table 3.2-3. Comparison of GHG Emissions—Planned Action Study Area
GHG Emission Estimates
60-Year Life Cycle GHG Emissions Increase (metric tons CO2 equivalent) Average Annual GHG Emissions Increase During 60-Year Project Lifetime (metric tons CO2 equivalent per year) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Preferred Alt Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Preferred Alt Planned Action Study Area 1,230,712 1,753,597 2,745,967 2582,988 20,512 29,227 45,766 43,050 Regional growth outside Planned Action Study Area 1,764,993 1,138,640 0 178,480 29,417 18,977 0 2,975 Total emissions increase for Planned Action Study Area plus regional growth 2,995,705 2,892,237 2,745,967 2,761,468 49,928 48,204 45,766 46,024
Net change in regional emissions compared with Alternative 1 (No Action) — -103,469 -249,738 -234,420 — -1,724 -4,162 -3,907
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-7 April 2011
ICF 593.10
3.2.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, the Preferred Alternative is expected to result in population and employment growth within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. Because the amount of redevelopment would fall within the bookends of the Draft EIS alternatives, air quality impacts from construction activities, commercial operations, vehicle tailpipe emissions, GHG emissions, and outdoor air toxics, as well as impacts on air quality attainment status, would be similar to those described in the Draft EIS. Although temporary, localized dust and odor impacts could occur during construction activities. However, the regulations and mitigation measures described in the Draft EIS are adequate to mitigate any adverse impacts anticipated to occur as a result of increased growth in the study area.
3.2.2.1 Emissions from Vehicle Travel As shown in Table 3.2-4, forecast population and VMT for the Preferred Alternative are higher than the forecast values for Alternative 1 but slightly lower than the values for Alternative 2. The net increases in VMT forecast as a result of this alternative are inconsequential compared with Puget Sound regional VMT and its implied impact on regional emissions and photochemical smog. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would have a negligible impact on regional air quality.
3.2.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The annual GHG emissions calculated for the Preferred Alternative are based on the future land uses listed in Table 3.2-5 for the subarea. As listed in Table 3.2-6, the Preferred Alternative represents a net reduction of 150 metric tons per year of regional GHG emissions. Therefore, similar to the alternatives studied in the Draft EIS, GHG impacts caused by the Preferred Alternative in the subarea would not be significant.
Table 3.2-4. Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Contribution to Forecast 2030 Regional VMT Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative Population 658 970 1,361 869 Planned Action Study Area daily VMT1 15,068 22,213 31,167 19,900 Puget Sound Region daily VMT2 92,738,880 Contribution to regional VMT 0.016% 0.024% 0.034% 0.021% VMT = vehicle miles traveled 1 Daily VMT calculations are based on 22.9 VMT per capita, the average daily VMT in the Puget Sound area (Puget Sound Regional Council 2010) 2 Puget Sound regional VMT totals for 2030 for the Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Area (Puget Sound Regional Council 2009).
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-8 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Table 3.2-5. Assumed Land Use and Population Growth for Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations—Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Subarea
Land Use Type Existing
Net Increase under Alternatives Compared with Existing Conditions Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative
Subarea
Puget Sound Region Outside Subarea Subarea
Puget Sound Region Outside Subarea Subarea
Puget Sound Region Outside Subarea Subarea
Puget Sound Region Outside Subarea Multifamily housing in large building (dwelling units) 100 171 204 309 166 475 0 260 215 Multifamily housing in small building (dwelling units) 10 4 0 1 3 4 0 6 -2 Retail (other than mall) (1,000 square feet) 0 0 31.5 13.5 18.0 31.5 0 5.8 25.7 Service (1,000 square feet) 0 19.6 7.9 38.5 -11.0 27.5 0 32.3 -4.8 Population* 314 344 703 656 391 1,047 0 555 492 * Net population increase for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea within this table uses the 2.31-persons-per-household rate assumed for the Planned Action Study Area and applies it to the net increase in the number of dwelling units within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Although the net increases and the total number of dwelling units are consistent throughout, in some instances a small variation in net population numbers within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea occur because a higher persons-per-household rate of 2.85 was used to estimate existing population within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea only. The higher persons-per-household figure was used for existing conditions to account for existing demographic information within the subarea.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-9 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Table 3.2-6. Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
GHG Emission Estimates 60-Year Life Cycle GHG Emissions Increase (metric tons CO2-equivalent) Average Annual GHG Emissions Increase During 60-Year Project Lifetime (metric tons CO2-equivalent per year) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Preferred Alt Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Preferred Alt Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 144,696 266,333 396,724 225,627 2,412 4,439 6,612 3,760 Regional growth outside subarea 280,020 144,877 0 190,102 4,667 2,415 0 3,168 Total emissions increase for subarea plus regional growth 424,717 411,210 396,724 415,729 7,079 6,854 6,612 6,929 Net change in regional emissions compared with Alternative 1 (No Action) — -13,506 -27,992 8,987 — -225 -467 -150
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-10 April 2011
ICF 593.10
3.2.3 Mitigation Measures There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative.
3.3 Water Resources This section provides an overview of typical impacts associated with urban development and redevelopment, methods for determining impacts, and a land cover analysis summary for the Preferred Alternative. Following the land cover analysis, impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.
3.3.1 Background and Methods Apart from a few vacant parcels, the study area is already developed with mixed residential and commercial land uses, with a high level of impervious surface coverage. Runoff is conveyed via storm drains to surface waters outside of the study area. Impacts on surface water and stormwater would result primarily from changes in the amount and quality of runoff from impervious surfaces in the Planned Action Study Area. Similarly, impacts on groundwater would result primarily from changes in the amount of recharge from the surface area due to the change in impervious surfaces and/or stormwater infrastructure. The improved water quality and quantity controls required by the stormwater code (RMC 4-6-030) for new developments and redevelopment projects over the required thresholds will help reduce the potential impacts of increased impervious area within the study area. Impacts on potential water quality are, therefore, evaluated based on the relative change in total pollution-generating impervious surfaces that would remain untreated (e.g., not redeveloped) as a result of anticipated growth and implementation of the stormwater code. Impacts on downstream flow volumes and recharge are evaluated based on the total net change in effective impervious area (e.g., impervious area not managed by flow-control BMPs) that would result based on anticipated growth and implementation of the stormwater code under each alternative. The spill control required by the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County 2009) for new development and redevelopment projects over the required thresholds will provide additional protection to water quality downstream of the study area. Construction impacts on water resources would be addressed through compliance with Core Requirement #5 for Erosion and Sediment Control in the 2009 King
County Surface Water Design Manual (King County 2009), as well as City amendments to the manual (City of Renton 2010), and, if the project results in 1 acre or more of land-disturbing activity, compliance with the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit. Future impervious surface coverage for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, under the alternatives, was estimated based on the conceptual site plans (see Figures 2-9, 2-10, and 2-11). For the remainder of the Planned Action Study Area, the estimated future impervious surface coverage under the alternatives was estimated by assuming that all infill and redevelopment
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-11 April 2011
ICF 593.10
projects would generally build to the maximum allowable impervious coverage defined by the zoning. Similarly, the proportion of pollution-generating impervious surfaces (e.g., roadways, driveways, and parking) versus non-pollution-generating impervious surfaces (e.g., building roofs, sidewalks, and patios) was estimated from allowable building coverage by the code and typical recent development as measured through aerial imagery. All new and redeveloped parcels were assumed to trigger all stormwater code requirements for flow control and water quality, which would result in water quality treatment of all pollution-generating impervious surfaces. Because of the density of the study area, flow-control BMPs assume that full infiltration or dispersion of impervious surfaces would be infeasible; however, the minimum percentages, based on site area, were assumed to be implemented. Compared with the Draft EIS alternatives, the Preferred Alternative assumptions for Green Connections and roadways were modified as follows:
Street sections for identified “Green Connection” streets were assumed to achieve the City’s “complete streets” standards, which were wider than those assumed for Draft EIS Alternatives 2 and 3; and
Fewer locations for bioretention planters were assumed within the right-of-way of NE Sunset Boulevard because there are several areas where bioretention/infiltration would not be advised adjacent to a wall.
3.3.2 Change in Land Cover—Preferred Alternative Estimates of land cover changes under the Preferred Alternative are shown in Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 and described following the tables.
Table 3.3-1. Land Cover Summary—Preferred Alternative
Total Area (acres)
Total Impervious Area (acres)
Total Pervious Area (acres) Total PGIS1 (acres) Total Untreated PGIS1 (acres) Effective Impervious (acres) Planned Action Study Area 255.40 174.40 81.00 76.44 46.26 165.41 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 12.64 6.1 6.54 1.7 0 3.66 1 PGIS = pollution-generating impervious area.
Table 3.3-2. Change in Land Cover Summary—Preferred Alternative
Project Area Net Change in Impervious Area (acres) Net Change in PGIS1 Area (acres) Net Change in Untreated PGIS1 (acres)
Net Change in Effective Impervious Area (acres)2 Planned Action Study Area 13.23 (15%) -16.41 (-18.6%) -41.84 (-47.5%) 4.24 (2.6%)4 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 1.37 (74.9%) -0.13 (-7.1%) -1.83 (-100%) -1.07 (-22.6%)4 1 PGIS = pollution-generating impervious area.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-12 April 2011
ICF 593.10
2 Impervious area not directly connected to a stream or drainage system. 3 All areas are expressed relative to existing conditions. See Draft EIS Section 3.3 (Table 3.3-1) for a summary of existing conditions. 4 The net change in effective impervious area within the Johns Creek Basin, excluding mitigation through regional detention facilities, is equal to 2.63 acres. The 2.6 3 acres within Johns Creek Basin would be mitigated by the regional detention facilities described in the text below. Within the May Creek Basin, the net change is equal to 0.54 acre. The net change in effective impervious area for the Preferred Alternative compared with the Draft EIS Alternatives is as follows:
Alternative 1, No Action: 5.29 acres;
Alternative 2: 1.51 acres;
Alternative 3: 0.75 acre; and
Preferred Alternative: 3.17 acres. The Preferred Alternative is in the range of results for the Draft EIS alternatives. It would have less impact than Alternative 1 but greater impacts than Alternatives 2 and 3. The primary reason for differences in effective impervious area under the Preferred Alternative compared with Alternatives 2 and 3 is because of the different assumptions with respect to Green Connections and the NE Sunset Boulevard cross sections detailed in Section 3.3.1, above. Additionally, the 0.5 acre of increased effective impervious surface in the May Creek Basin will be mitigated on site by private developers, consistent with the City’s stormwater regulations. The remaining 2.67 acres of increased effective impervious surface within the Johns Creek Basin would be mitigated by the regional detention facilities described below.
3.3.3 Planned Action Study Area Under the Preferred Alternative, new and redevelopment projects are anticipated at an increased growth rate over the No Action Alternative (though the net increase in effective impervious area associated with the Preferred Alternative would be less than that of the No Action Alternative, as described above). The overall anticipated growth pattern for the Preferred Alternative would be similar to but less than that of Alternative 3. This increased growth is anticipated to result in larger roof areas compared with the No Action Alternative but with a potential reduction in total surface parking as a result of a shift to structured parking to accommodate parking needs with the reduced available space, particularly within the areas zoned Center Village (CV). All new and redevelopment projects would be required to provide “enhanced basic water quality treatment” or, if single family, “basic water quality treatment,” per the stormwater code. All redevelopment projects would still be required to provide flow-control BMPs to the minimum levels of site or impervious area, as required by the code, where feasible. NE Sunset Boulevard would be reconstructed with up to 14 feet of additional right-of-way. Under this alternative, the amount of pollution-generating impervious surface, equal to approximately 0.6 acre, would be reduced because the center turn lanes would be replaced with pervious medians. The project would require compliance with the code and, therefore, would include bioretention planters to provide water quality treatment. Because the proposed roadway would decrease the total impervious footprint within the right-of-way, no additional flow control would be necessary. Because of slope constraints, including both longitudinal slopes and adjacent walls or steep slopes, bioretention planters are assumed to be lined facilities providing water quality treatment only.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-13 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Additional flow reduction is not included in this analysis; however, where feasible, flow reduction will be incorporated in the final design of NE Sunset Boulevard improvements. The Preferred Alternative would also include construction of green connections within portions of the right-of-way. These projects would include retrofitting the edge of the roadways to add a combination of bioretention planters, permeable pavement for parking (or subsurface infiltration beds beneath conventional asphalt), and new sidewalks, also constructed of permeable pavement. Based on preliminary analysis, the assumed performance is to provide for water quality treatment of the full roadway surface as well as flow reduction equal to a 20% to 30% reduction in the flow from the tributary impervious area. Preliminary sections of the green connections based on roadway classification are provided in Figure 2-17. Implementation of the green connections and the NE Sunset Boulevard reconstruction project under the Preferred Alternative is estimated to result in a net reduction of approximately 15.7 acres of untreated pollution-generating impervious area and approximately 3.1 acres of effective impervious area. The resulting net change in pollution-generating impervious area within the Planned Action Study Area (exclusive of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) is estimated to be a reduction of approximately 41.8 acres (48%) from existing conditions. The net change in effective impervious area would be an increase of approximately 3.2 acres (1.9%) from existing conditions. Under the Preferred Alternative, the City proposes to invest in the public stormwater infrastructure by constructing regional stormwater facilities within the study area (Figure 3.3-1). A conceptualization of a regional stormwater facility located in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea is also provided (Figure 3.3-2); while located in the Sunset Terrace subarea it would serve the general Planned Action Study Area. This facility would be designed to maintain active and open recreation space, allowing water to be treated within a series of small, integrated rain gardens that would be distributed along the edge of the proposed “central” park and connect the subsurface to an underground infiltration bed beneath open space. Should infiltration in this location be determined to be infeasible upon final design, flow control would be provided by an underground detention vault. This facility would be designed to mitigate for the additional 2.6 acres of effective impervious area within the Johns Creek Basin estimated to be added by the combined improvements within the Planned Action Study Area due to the anticipated growth under the Preferred Alternative.
!R!R!R!R!R!R!((2 Lanes)(3 Lanes)(2 Lanes)
(4 Lanes)
JOHNS
CREEK
MAY CREEK
JOHNS CREEK -
SUNSET TERRACE
NE 12TH ST
NE 7TH ST EDMONDS AVE NEHARRINGTON AVE NENE SUNSET BLVDMONROE AVE NESUNSET BLVD NEBLAINE AVE NEN E 1 6 T H S T
ABERDEEN AVE NEN E P A R K D R
NE 10TH ST
NE 6TH PL
NE 10TH PL
DAYTON AVE NELYNNWOOD AVE NEINDEX AVE NEJEFFERSON AVE NEN E 8 T H P L KIRKLAND AVE NENE 8TH ST
NE 9TH PL
NE 9TH ST
NE 7TH PL
NE 11TH PL
NE 11TH ST
NE 17TH PL
SU
NSE
T LN NE
NE 15TH ST
NE 13TH PL
INDEX PL NENE 21ST ST
NE 20TH ST
GLENWOOD AVE NENE 19TH ST
IN D EX C T N ENE 17TH STKIRKLAND PL NENE 18TH ST
CAMAS AVE NENE 13TH ST
NE 6TH CIR
NE 18TH PL
FERNDALE CIR NENE 15TH PL
NE 14TH ST
MONROE AVE NECAMAS AVE NENE 7TH ST
NE 14TH ST
ABERDEEN AVE NENE 20TH ST
NE 21ST ST
N E 13T H STDAYTON AVE NEINDEX AVE NENE 8TH ST
N
E 10T
H
ST
NE 10TH PL
NE 8TH PL
NE 6 T H P L
NE 21ST ST
NE 10TH STDAYTON AVE NEINDEX AVE NENE 9TH ST DAYTON AVE NES
UNS
E
T
L
N NE
LYNNWOOD AVE NEKIRKLAND AVE NEN E 20TH STFigure 3.3-1
Potential Regional Stormwater Facilities and Green Connections
Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
Source: City of Renton; King County
00593.10/GIS - Revised: 2/23/2011City Limits
Planned Action Study Area
Parcels
!(Regional Stormwater Facility
Green Connections
!R!R!R Permeable Sidewalk
Alley Woonerf
Green Access
Green Collector
Arterial (# Lanes)
Drainage Facility Sub-Basins
JOHNS CREEK
MAY CREEK
JOHNS CREEK -
SUNSET TERRACE
0 500 1,000
Feet
±
Figure 3.3-2
Proposed Storm Drainage Facilities—Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
Bioretention Swale
Detention Vault Note: The central open space will be designed and
programmed at a later date. Considerations would
include active and passive recreation, community
gardens, and community gathering areas.
0’ 100’ 200’ 300’ 400’
N
Infiltration Gallery
Storm Drain
Base map provided by
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-16 April 2011
ICF 593.10
The analysis demonstrates a potential increase of approximately 0.5 acre of effective impervious area within the May Creek Basin due entirely to projected private redevelopment. This analysis assumes that all associated redevelopment within the Planned Action Study Area would be required to comply with the stormwater code; therefore, no additional cumulative impacts are anticipated. Increased impervious area within the May Creek Basin would be mitigated on a site-by-site basis through adherence to the drainage code, which requires matching flow durations from a forested predevelopment condition.
3.3.4 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Impacts on water resources in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under the Preferred Alternative would be less than those of other alternatives studied in the Draft EIS. The Preferred Alternative would have a larger net reduction in effective impervious area within the subarea than even Alternative 3, largely because of the proposed central park. The Sunset Terrace redevelopment would include Low Impact Development (LID) techniques, including pervious sidewalks, rain gardens, and cisterns, to reduce runoff from impervious surfaces. The assumed level of control under this analysis would provide water quality treatment of all pollution-generating impervious surfaces plus flow reduction from an area equivalent to 40% of the site impervious area, twice as much as required by the stormwater code for a large site with less than 65% impervious coverage. Where existing site conditions and space constraints limit the effectiveness of infiltrating runoff from LID techniques near the source of runoff below this target level, additional flow control, with a preference for infiltration, if feasible, would be provided in a regional stormwater facility located on the west edge of the proposed central park. Under this alternative, all untreated pollution-generating impervious surfaces within the subarea would be eliminated, resulting in a reduction of 1.83 acres of untreated pollution-generating surface from the Johns Creek Basin. The estimated change in effective impervious area would result in a decrease of approximately 1.07 acres (23%) compared with existing conditions.
3.3.5 Mitigation Measures An incorporated feature of the Preferred Alternative is regional detention facilities (e.g. regional rainwater garden) in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative, which includes regional detention facilities as well as the other mitigation measures applicable to the Draft EIS alternatives.
3.4 Plants and Animals Existing fish use of streams draining the Planned Action Study Area was described in Draft EIS Section 3.4 and clarified in Chapter 4 of this EIS. No aquatic habitat has been identified within the Planned Action Study Area, but aquatic habitat does occur in the form of streams in Johns Creek, Honey Creek, and May Creek, which receive stormwater from the Planned Action Study Area. The Planned Action Study Area lies mostly within the Johns Creek Basin. Tabor et al. (2006) report on use of lower Johns Creek by juvenile Chinook salmon that enter the creek from Lake Washington and use the lower 700 to 800 feet of the creek as rearing habitat during the spring and early summer. This portion of Johns Creek is at grade with Lake Washington. Stormwater originating from
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-17 April 2011
ICF 593.10
the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and from portions of the Planned Action Study Area within the Johns Creek Basin would be conveyed to these waters. Johns Creek west of I-405 is classified as a major receiving water body that does not require flow duration control. The basis for this determination is in the report Enhanced Transportation Project Delivery through Watershed Characterization, produced by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Urban Corridors Office in collaboration with Ecology, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Muckleshoot Tribe (Gersib et al. 2004). Therefore, the relevant stormwater requirements for flow control within the Johns Creek Basin are to maintain the capacity of the existing storm drainage system by matching peak flows from the existing land coverage and construct flow control BMPs where feasible. These measures are further described below in Section 3.4.1.2. Runoff from a small portion of the northern limits of the study area is conveyed via piped systems to Honey and May creeks. Development within these basins must adhere to the City’s drainage standards, which require matching flow durations from a forested predevelopment condition. Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.
3.4.1 Planned Action Study Area
3.4.1.1 Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would have a limited effect on terrestrial vegetation and wildlife habitat in the Planned Action Study Area. Approximately 40% (84 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop. This change would likely result in a proportional reduction in plant cover and a shift toward more intensive social and recreational use of vegetated areas. However, redevelopment in the study area would also use low-impact development practices such as rain gardens and hydraulically functional landscaping measures. These approaches emphasize vegetation enhancement and, as currently practiced in the region, commonly result in a shift to vegetation that requires less watering and chemical (fertilizer/pesticide) application than typical landscaping, with less grass with more trees and shrubs. These changes are likely to result in improved wildlife habitat function within the planted areas. Also, similar to other alternatives considered, redevelopment would be consistent with the goals of the Renton Urban and Community Forestry Redevelopment Plan (Worthy and Associates 2009). The net result is likely to be a measurable decline in total vegetated area, accompanied by a measurable improvement in plant diversity and quality of the remaining habitat. There would also be some restructuring of wildlife habitat continuity. The green connections could enhance habitat connectivity, while areas of density increase would tend to fragment habitat. The net effect would be restricted to minor and local changes in habitat connectivity. Thus, effects on terrestrial wildlife habitat would be less than significant. Besides these net changes, individual redevelopment projects would result in a short-term loss of vegetation cover, along with noise and activity levels that would result in little or no use of the construction areas by wildlife during the period of construction. Because these impacts would be temporary and localized and would not occur simultaneously across the Planned Action Study Area, their effects would be very minor.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-18 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Indirect effects on plants and wildlife would very similar to Draft EIS Alternative 3 (i.e., potential for invasive plant species). Again, largely because of the absence of impacts on special-status species, effects on wildlife would be less than significant. No cumulative impacts on terrestrial vegetation and wildlife have been identified in association with activities that would be expected to occur in the Planned Action Study Area under Alternative 3.
3.4.1.2 Aquatic Habitat and Fish Because there are no aquatic habitats within the Planned Action Study Area, the potential impacts on aquatic habitat and fish under the Preferred Alternative are solely associated with the indirect impacts of stormwater routed to Johns, May and Honey creeks, all of which support salmon, with steelhead also occurring in May and Honey creeks. During construction, redevelopment actions would be required to comply with City regulations requiring temporary erosion and sedimentation controls to prevent water quality impacts from work site stormwater runoff. Thus, there is very little potential for construction activities to affect water quality in fish-bearing streams, and impacts would be less than significant. Following construction, projects would be required to comply with City regulations requiring stormwater detention and treatment to be consistent with the 2009 King County Surface Water
Design Manual (King County 2009), as amended and adopted by the City. Those requirements are summarized below for the Preferred Alternative (though applicable to Alternatives 2 and 3 as well).
Discharge at the Natural Location. The existing discharge points into Johns, May and Honey creeks would not be changed.
Off-site Analysis. The proposed public improvements would not increase the existing impervious area and therefore will not alter the rate, volume, duration, or location of discharges. Each new private and redevelopment project would need to evaluate whether off-site analysis is needed.
Flow Control. New private and redevelopment projects within May or Honey Creek basins would be required to provide flow control to match durations from 50% of the 2-year storm to the 50-year storm under forested conditions. Johns Creek is classified as a major receiving water body that does not require duration control. Within the Johns Creek Basin, redevelopment actions must maintain the capacity of the existing storm drainage system by matching peak flows from the existing land coverage and constructing flow control BMPs where feasible.
Conveyance System. Conveyance systems are required to convey and contain the 25-year design storm. Conveyance systems may overflow during the 100-year design storm provided that the overflow does not create or aggravate a severe flooding or erosion problem.
Water Quality. All proposed projects that create or replace more than 5,000 square feet of pollution-generating impervious surfaces (or more than 35,000 square feet of pollution-generating pervious surface), including redevelopment projects, must provide water quality treatment facilities.
Source Controls. All commercial, industrial and multifamily projects undergoing drainage review are required to implement source controls that prevent rainfall and runoff from coming into contact with pollutants. Besides the requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, the Preferred Alternative also incorporates a variety of innovative techniques, collectively called green
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-19 April 2011
ICF 593.10
stormwater infrastructure, to minimize pollutant loading and flow volume in stormwater discharged from the Planned Action Study Area. Green stormwater infrastructure will be implemented on individual lots per the flow control BMPs standard, which includes techniques such as full or limited infiltration, dispersion, rain gardens, permeable pavements, rainwater harvesting, vegetated roofs, reduced impervious surfaces, and native growth protection. The standard requires projects to fully disperse or infiltrate roof runoff where feasible and, otherwise, to implement flow control BMPs to target either 10% or 20% of the site area, depending on the size and density of the site. Public infrastructure projects (green connections, NE Sunset Boulevard, and Sunset Terrace) included in the Planned Action would meet an enhanced minimum performance standard, which is double the minimum for the private development listed above. The effect of these measures is that, although impervious surface in the Planned Action Study Area would increase by 15% under the Preferred Alternative, the net increase in effective impervious area would be only 2.6%, and there would be substantial reductions in pollutant-generating impervious surface (18.6% decline) and untreated pollutant-generating impervious surface (47.5% decline) (Table 3.3-2). The Preferred Alternative would maintain stormwater flow volumes and reduce stormwater pollutant loads relative to existing conditions and, thus, would have a less-than-significant impact on aquatic habitat and fish. No cumulative impacts have been identified in association with activities that would be expected to occur in the Planned Action Study Area under the Preferred Alternative.
3.4.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Potential impacts on terrestrial plant and wildlife habitat in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would be substantially the same as those described above for the Planned Action Study Area. Because redevelopment would include currently vacant lots and development of housing and a senior health facility, it is likely that a net loss of vegetation would occur, even if it were partially compensated by the construction of LID practices such as rain gardens and hydraulically functional landscaping. Nonetheless, in the absence of sensitive wildlife species, these effects would be very minor and would not be expected to substantially alter levels of diversity of plant and animal life now found in the subarea. The only potentially affected aquatic habitat is Johns Creek, which receives stormwater from the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. As noted in Section 3.3.4, above, redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would use green stormwater infrastructure to reduce runoff from impervious surfaces. There would be water quality treatment of all pollution-generating impervious surfaces plus flow reduction from an area equivalent to 40% of the site impervious area, which is twice as much as required by the stormwater code for a large site with less than 65% impervious coverage. Additional flow control would be provided in a regional stormwater facility located on the west edge of the new central park at Sunset Terrace. Redevelopment would result in increased impervious surface area compared with current conditions, but because of treatment and detention BMPs, there would be a reduction in pollutant-generating impervious surface, and all untreated pollutant-generating impervious surface would be eliminated. Effective impervious area on the site would be reduced by 22.6% (Table 3.3-2). The Preferred Alternative would thus reduce stormwater flow volumes and reduce stormwater pollutant loads relative to existing conditions, producing a beneficial impact on aquatic habitat and fish in the Johns Creek Basin.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-20 April 2011
ICF 593.10
The stormwater commitments incorporated in the Preferred Alternative would be sufficient to avoid indirect adverse impacts on aquatic habitats and fish. No cumulative impacts have been identified in association with activities that would be expected to occur in the subarea under the Preferred Alternative.
3.4.3 Mitigation Measures There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative.
3.5 Energy Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. For each geographic level, temporary construction impacts are addressed as well as long-term local energy use. In addition, indirect and cumulative impacts of the alternatives’ contribution to regional energy use are addressed.
3.5.1 Planned Action Study Area Energy impacts during construction and operation resulting from the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those described in the Draft EIS because the Planned Action Study Area would experience population and employment growth within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3. Development under this alternative would lead to increases in population and employment throughout the study area, resulting in an increase in energy consumption. However, future development increases in the study area would be balanced against corresponding non-transit-oriented development (non-TOD) and lower density development outside the study area under Alternative 1. Table 3.5-1 summarizes the study area’s calculated energy usage for the Preferred Alternative and presents overall regional energy reduction relative to Alternative 1. Although the Preferred Alternative level of growth would result in increased energy demand in the study area, the energy impact would not be significant for the same reasons described in the Draft EIS:
More TOD and mixed-use development would reduce regional fuel usage from vehicle trips;
Higher density multifamily development would consume less energy per unit than a low-density housing unit because of its smaller floor area per unit and, therefore, would reduce regional housing energy; and
New buildings, which are more energy efficient that old buildings, would be constructed to meet state and City building and energy code requirements. The potential energy demand and regional benefit is greater than Alternative 2 and similar to Alternative 3.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-21 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Table 3.5-1. Comparison of Annual Energy Usage—Planned Action Study Area
Energy Usage Estimates Annual Energy Usage Increase (million Btu) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative Planned Action Study Area Annual building energy usage 70,483 116,260 184,500 174,530 Annual vehicle energy usage 31,180 39,804 91,029 81,315 Total annual energy usage for Planned Action Study Area 101,663 156,063 275,529 255,845 Regional growth outside Planned Action Study Area Annual building energy usage 133,304 78,649 0 11,015 Annual vehicle energy usage 69,755 58,156 0 11,479 Total annual energy usage for regional growth 203,509 136,806 0 22,494 Total annual energy usage increase for Planned Action Study Area plus regional growth 304,722 292,869 275,529 278,339
Net change in regional annual energy usage compared with Alternative 1 (No Action) 0 -11,853 -29,194 -26,383
Btu = British thermal unit
3.5.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Energy impacts under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those described in the Draft EIS because the subarea would experience population and employment growth within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. Table 3.5-2 summarizes the calculated subarea energy usage for the Preferred Alternative and presents the overall regional energy reduction relative to Alternative 1. Although the growth anticipated under the Preferred Alternative would result in increased energy demand in the subarea, the energy impact would not be significant for the same reasons described for the Planned Action Study Area, above.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-22 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Table 3.5-2. Comparison of Annual Energy Usage—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment
Subarea
Energy Usage Estimates Annual Energy Usage Increase (million Btu) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Annual building energy usage 7,953 15,048 21,821 12,644 Annual vehicle energy usage 3,081 11,408 21,833 8,695 Total annual energy usage for subarea 11,034 26,457 43,654 21,338 Regional Growth Outside Subarea Annual building energy usage 15,409 7,525 0 10,196 Annual vehicle energy usage 20,835 11,583 0 14,599 Total annual energy usage for regional growth 36,245 19,108 0 24,795 Total annual energy usage increase for subarea plus regional growth 47,278 45,564 43,654 46,133
Net change in regional annual energy usage compared with Alternative 1 (No Action) 0 -1,714 -3,624 -1,145
Btu = British thermal unit
3.5.3 Mitigation Measures There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative.
3.6 Noise Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. For each geographic level, temporary construction noise impacts are addressed as well as long-term operational noise impacts of land use activities. In addition, the increase in noise from traffic is addressed as a cumulative impact, including each alternative’s contribution of vehicular trips to total trips on NE Sunset Boulevard.
3.6.1 Planned Action Study Area The Preferred Alternative is expected to have population and employment growth within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3. Because the amount of redevelopment falls within the bookends of the Draft EIS alternatives, noise impacts from construction activities, commercial activities, and vehicles traveling on NE Sunset Boulevard and local streets would be similar to those described in the Draft EIS. No significant unavoidable adverse construction or operational noise impacts are anticipated in
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-23 April 2011
ICF 593.10
the Planned Action Study Area with the implementation of mitigation measures noted in the Draft EIS. As shown in Table 3.6-1, the Preferred Alternative would generate traffic volumes on NE Sunset Boulevard similar to those of Alternative 3. The modeled peak-hour traffic noise increase (2030 noise levels compared with existing noise levels), as shown in Table 3.6-2, is less than WSDOT’s “substantial increase” impact threshold of 10 dBA. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would not affect typical residences along NE Sunset Boulevard.
Table 3.6-1. NE Sunset Boulevard Traffic Volumes in Planned Action Study Area Alternative Peak-Hour Traffic Volume (vehicles/hour) Average Daily Traffic Volume (vehicles/day) Existing (2009) 2,020 20,200 Alternative 1 (2030) 2,420 24,200 Alternative 2 (2030) 2,530 25,300 Alternative 3 (2030) 2,660 26,600 Preferred Alternative (2030) 2,640 26,400
Table 3.6-2. Modeled Peak-Hour Noise Levels of NE Sunset Boulevard in the Planned Action
Study Area
Alternative Outdoor Noise Level Leq (dBA) Increased Noise Level from Existing Leq (dBA) Existing (2009) 67.4 — Alternative 1 (2030) 69.5 2.1 Alternative 2 (2030) 69.6 2.2 Alternative 3 (2030) 69.9 2.5 Preferred Alternative (2030) 69.9 2.5 Leq = equivalent sound level; dBA = A-weighted decibel
3.6.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Under the Preferred Alternative, the subarea is expected to experience population and employment growth within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. Therefore, noise impacts from construction activities, commercial activities, and vehicles traveling on NE Sunset Boulevard would be similar to those described in the Draft EIS. No significant unavoidable adverse noise impacts from construction and commercial activities are anticipated in the subarea with the implementation of mitigation measures noted in the Draft EIS. As shown in Table 3.6-1, the Preferred Alternative would generate daily traffic volumes on NE Sunset Boulevard similar to those of Alternative 3. However, on the east side of Harrington Avenue NE, the setback of proposed buildings would be farther from the NE Sunset Boulevard centerline than the Draft EIS alternatives at 65 feet. On the west side of Harrington Avenue NE, the proposed building setback would be 70 feet from the center of NE Sunset Boulevard, and on east side of Harrington Avenue NE, the proposed building setback would be 65 feet from the center of NE Sunset Boulevard. Regardless, as shown in Table 3.6-3, the first row of residential dwellings abutting NE Sunset Boulevard (see Figure 2-11) would be exposed to “normally unacceptable” noise levels based on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) criterion of 65 dBA Ldn;
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-24 April 2011
ICF 593.10
however, the City meets exceptions to the 65 dBA Ldn criterion in 24 CFR part 51, as identified in Final EIS Appendix F. The noise levels at these first-row residential dwellings currently exceed the HUD noise criterion and would continue to exceed it under the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, mitigation measures determined to be feasible will be required to reduce traffic noise from NE Sunset Boulevard and meet the HUD interior noise criterion of 45 dBA Ldn for residential uses. With an exterior noise level over 68 dBA, the proposed buildings would be required to achieve a minimum 24 dBA reduction. According to the HUD noise guidebook, noise attenuation from various building materials are calculated using a sound transmission class (STC) rating. Although the standard construction approaches can normally achieve an STC rating of more than 24 dBA, as demonstrated in Final EIS Appendix F, RHA should require an STC rating of 30 dBA for these first-row residential dwellings because the HUD noise guidebook shows that the sound reduction achieved by different techniques may be a little optimistic.1
It should be noted that, in determining the construction techniques to achieve the interior noise level, a project can proceed without the requirement of sealing the windows provided criteria are met, as identified in Final EIS Appendix F.
A performance standard of 30 dBA is added as a mitigation measure for all action alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative (see Final EIS Chapter 1, Table 1-2, for this addition).
Table 3.6-3. Modeled Day-Night Noise Levels of NE Sunset Boulevard in Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Subarea
Alternative
Average Setback West of Harrington (in feet)
Outdoor Noise Level West of Harrington Avenue NE Ldn (dBA) Average Setback East of Harington (in feet)
Outdoor Noise Level East of Harrington Avenue NE Ldn (dBA) Existing (2009) 60 68.1 60 68.1 Alternative 1 (2030) 60 68.9 60 68.9 Alternative 2 (2030) 70 68.0 50 70.2 Alternative 3 (2030) 70 68.3 50 70.4 Preferred Alternative (2030) 70 68.2 65 68.7
Ldn = day-night noise level; dBA = A-weighted decibel
3.6.3 Mitigation Measures A performance standard of 30 dBA is added as a mitigation measure for all action alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative (see Final EIS Chapter 1, Table 1-2, for this addition). Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative, including those applicable to the Draft EIS. 1 HUD noise guidebook, Chapter 4, page 33 “… use the STC ratings with a bit of caution and remain aware of the possible 2–3 dB overstating that you may get with the STC rating system.”
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-25 April 2011
ICF 593.10
3.7 Environmental Health Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. As described for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 (see Section 2.7 of Chapter 2) and in the Draft EIS, the risk level increases in the same order as the alternatives are discussed. The likelihood of encountering substances at sites with past releases increases with the level of development. For the Preferred Alternative, the level of development is similar to but slightly less than that of Alternative 3. Therefore, the overall impacts of the Preferred Alternative on environmental health are slightly less than those of Alternative 3. While all of the impacts listed below could occur during construction and operation of the project, elements included under the Preferred Alternative would need to be addressed at a project-specific level through permitting and demonstrate compliance with federal, state, and local laws that address hazardous materials. The relative impacts listed below are based on general anticipated areas of construction, along with general land use development type and proximity to sites identified in the regulatory agency database search. The hazardous material sites identified in the regulatory agency database search are not expected to affect the health and safety of occupants or conflict with the intended utilization of future developments.
3.7.1 Planned Action Study Area
3.7.1.1 Construction Impacts The primary potential construction impact under the Preferred Alternative is encountering or releasing hazardous substances into the environment during construction. Contamination from hazardous building materials, underground storage tanks (USTs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) would also increase because of increased demolition activities. Accidental releases of hazardous substances as a result of construction activities could also increase.
3.7.1.2 Operation Impacts If development occurs as described in the Preferred Alternative on contaminated sites, where appropriate cleanup measures were not completed or residual contaminations were present, then there is a potential risk to public health for people using the site. In addition, acquiring an easement or title to properties with potential environmental contamination could create significant long-term environmental liability or management concerns. Longer term environmental liabilities might include financial responsibility for cleaning on-site contamination or for remediation activities necessitated by off-site migration of hazardous substances. The potential for hazardous material releases could occur because of the commercial development and roadway/transit improvements. Commercial development, such as addition of new fuel stations or dry cleaners, could increase the potential for release of hazardous substances into the environment as a result of accidental spills during transport and operation of these facilities. In addition, hazardous substances, such as oil and other lubricants, are used or transported during routine operation and maintenance of transit facilities or roadways. With development, increased traffic is expected. If an accident occurs, then these substances could be released to the environment
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-26 April 2011
ICF 593.10
in the form of spills. All other things being equal, the risk of a spill occurring is proportional to VMT. Thus, an increase in traffic as a result of roadway and/or transit improvements would increase the risk of incidental spills of hazardous materials.
3.7.1.3 Indirect Impacts The removal of contaminated groundwater, hazardous building materials, or USTs would result in an overall cleaner environment and reduced risk to human health and the environment. By removing contaminated groundwater and USTs from hazardous materials sites, the potential for the contaminants to migrate to an otherwise uncontaminated area is reduced, and the potential for the hazardous materials to harm human health and the environment is also reduced. This beneficial effect would be observed in the immediate vicinity of the area where contaminated media are present and removed as a result of redevelopment.
3.7.1.4 Cumulative Impacts As development occurs within the Planned Action Study Area and the surrounding region, population and activity levels will rise, and the number of people exposed to hazards related to the transport of hazardous materials will increase. However, the incremental impact of the project is so small that it would make only a negligible contribution to the cumulative impact within the region. Enforcement of federal, state, county, and local hazardous material regulations will reduce public health hazards to a less-than-significant level.
3.7.1.5 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate the impacts described above, as discussed in Section 4.7.2.1 of the Draft EIS, apply to Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 and the Preferred Alternative. A clarification to a mitigation measure referencing a particular Ecology database is made in Final EIS Chapter 1, Table 1-2, and Final EIS Chapter 4, Clarifications and Corrections.
3.7.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Existing subsurface contaminations have not been identified on the vacant properties within the subarea and, therefore, are not expected to be encountered during construction. If there are lead-based paints or asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) at any existing buildings that would be demolished, appropriate permits and precautions would be required. Accidental release of hazardous substances during construction could still occur as in all construction projects.
3.7.2.1 Construction Impacts None of the sites with identified use or documented releases of hazardous substances are present within this subarea. Therefore, the potential to encounter uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances in the environment during construction is relatively low. Contamination from hazardous building materials, USTs, and PCBs during demolition activities, as well as accidental spills during construction, would be the same as described for the Planned Action Study Area.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-27 April 2011
ICF 593.10
3.7.2.2 Operational Impacts No operation impacts have been identified because none of the sites with identified use or documented releases of hazardous substances are present within this subarea. Therefore, the potential for acquiring long-term environmental liability or management concerns are low.
3.7.2.3 Indirect Impacts The removal of hazardous building materials or USTs would result in an overall cleaner environment and reduced risk to human health and the environment.
3.7.2.4 Cumulative Impacts The hazardous materials impact of the potential development in the subarea is so small that it would make only a negligible contribution to the cumulative impact within the region.
3.7.2.5 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate the impacts described above, as discussed in Section 4.7.2.2 of the Draft EIS, apply to Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 and the Preferred Alternative. A clarification to a mitigation measure referencing a particular Ecology database is made in Final EIS Chapter 1, Table 1-2, and Final EIS Chapter 4, Clarifications and Corrections.
3.8 Land Use
3.8.1 Planned Action Study Area The Preferred Alternative is similar to Alternative 3 and falls within the bookends of the Draft EIS alternatives. The Preferred Alternative would provide construction-related impacts within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3 because the amount of redevelopment falls within this range. The implementation of appropriate construction mitigation measures, similar to those described in the Draft EIS, would ensure that construction would not cause significant adverse impacts. Development under the Preferred Alternative would implement the City’s Comprehensive Plan designations within the Planned Action Study Area to a similar extent as Alternative 3 by providing more of a mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented community center than the other alternatives considered. The Preferred Alternative would provide more than 2,300 dwelling units and 1.2 million square feet of commercial space compared with existing conditions. This level of growth is closest to Alternative 3; it falls within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, redevelopment would provide more commercial than residential development, and the most intense development would occur along and near the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor in the Sunset Mixed Use and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment subareas. There would be slightly more intense residential development in the Central Subarea under the Preferred Alternative compared with other alternatives as a result of the consolidation of Sunset Court Park into a central park in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and corresponding redevelopment of the existing Sunset Court Park site. As a result, there would be less intense development in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea where a larger 2.65-acre park would be located, reducing anticipated redevelopment in that subarea. Overall intensity of development in the Planned Action
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-28 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Study Area and the number of taller buildings, up to 60 feet in height, would fall in the range of Alternatives 2 and 3. Streetscape upgrades to NE Sunset Boulevard and nearby streets would most closely resemble those considered in Alternative 3. However, on NE Sunset Boulevard between Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 10th Street, right-of-way acquisition would be needed along the Sunset Terrace property (up to 14 feet instead of 13 feet as under Alternative 3), whereas the south side of the NE Sunset Boulevard would retain its existing pedestrian streetscape, resulting in less right-of-way impacts on this side of NE Sunset Boulevard compared with Alternative 3. East of NE 10th Street, minimal right-of-way acquisition would be needed because the current right-of-way width along NE Sunset Boulevard would accommodate the proposed street improvements, though some parking areas would intrude into the existing right-of-way. All alternatives implement the City’s Comprehensive Plan to varying degrees. However, a review of the Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, and policies found in Draft EIS Appendix E indicates that the Preferred Alternative provides a level of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan similar to that of Alternative 3, which is the most consistent of all the alternatives with respect to implementing the vision of the Center Village designation and other associated designations within the Planned Action Study Area. It also provides for a balanced multimodal transportation system. As with other alternatives studied, no indirect or cumulative land use impacts are anticipated outside the Planned Action Study Area because of the City’s planned density pattern and regular Comprehensive Plan review and amendment updates, which control the monitoring, evaluation, and amendment process.
3.8.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Temporary impacts on adjacent land uses in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would be related to redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex, development of affordable housing on vacant properties, and completion of civic investments, including a 2.65-acre public park, which would require vacation of Harrington Avenue NE between NE 10th Street and NE Sunset Lane. Construction-related impacts would be similar to those described under Alternatives 2 and 3 in which the entire subarea would be redeveloped. Assuming the phasing of redevelopment described in Chapter 2 and the implementation of mitigation measures similar to those described under the No Action Alternative for the Planned Action Study Area (see Final EIS Chapter 1), construction would not cause significant adverse impacts. Redevelopment within the subarea under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to but less extensive than Alternative 2, largely because of the inclusion of a larger public open space within the subarea resulting from transfer of Sunset Court Park open space from the Central Subarea to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. The Preferred Alternative would provide about 266 more dwelling units than existing conditions in a mixed-use development that integrates commercial and civic spaces (between 25,600 and 38,100 square feet of commercial and civic space), falling within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. However, under the Preferred Alternative, the entire subarea would be transformed by redevelopment, more in keeping with the City’s vision of mixed-use development and similar to Alternatives 2 and 3. Further, this redevelopment of the subarea would serve as an incentive for other redevelopment opportunities near the Planned Action Study Area, including redevelopment of the existing Sunset Court Park site located north of the subarea.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-29 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Infrastructure improvements planned for the subarea would include streetscape improvements within and adjacent to the subarea to create a more pedestrian- and transit-friendly environment and creation of the 2.65-acre park described above. The vacation of a portion of Harrington Avenue NE would have a localized impact on vehicular traffic similar to that described under Alternative 3 in the Draft EIS. A loop road would be created with an extension of Sunset Lane NE and the realignment of intersections at Harrington Avenue NE, NE 10th Street, and Glenwood Avenue NE. Streetscape improvements in the subarea under the Preferred Alternative would be most similar to those studied for Alternative 3. As described under the Planned Action Study Area, above, the property acquisition needed for streetscape improvements could be up to 1 foot greater than the acquisition anticipated in Alternative 3 on the western portion of the subarea abutting NE Sunset Boulevard. However, this additional increment of property acquisition is not anticipated to result in a significant impact; Sunset Terrace concept plans in Figure 2-11 of this Final EIS account for the conceptual improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard. In addition, realignment of the NE 10th Street connection to Glenwood Avenue NE would affect two existing buildings located north of the existing Glenwood Avenue NE alignment and one building southeast of the intersection of Glenwood Avenue NE and Sunset Lane within the subarea. However, the Preferred Alternative, similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, anticipates redevelopment of the entire subarea, and these dwelling units would be replaced in a phased manner, as described in Chapter 2. As with other alternatives, refinements to the Sunset Terrace development design and the streetscape design would be coordinated to minimize impacts of the streetscape design on future redevelopment of Sunset Terrace. Impacts of streetscape improvements within the subarea would be similar to those described under Alternative 3. The Preferred Alternative would provide a level of Comprehensive Plan goal and policy consistency that would be similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, both of which would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing complex with a mixed-income development, which is consistent with City policies that discourage the creation of socioeconomic enclaves and encourage the dispersion of low-income housing. These alternatives would also do more to develop the Center Village, as envisioned in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, than the No Action Alternative. The subarea is similar to the Planned Action Study Area with respect to other City Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. (Goals, objectives, and policies are found in Draft EIS Appendix E.)
3.8.3 Mitigation Measures There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative.
3.9 Socioeconomics Impacts on socioeconomics, both beneficial and adverse, are discussed with respect to the programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and the specific project impacts of developing proposed conceptual plans within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Because the Preferred Alternative is similar to Alternative 3 in terms of location and the amount of growth, the Preferred Alternative would result in similar impacts.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-30 April 2011
ICF 593.10
3.9.1 Planned Action Study Area
3.9.1.1 Construction Impacts Construction activities associated with the Preferred Alternative are not anticipated to result in any changes in the population characteristics of the Planned Action Study Area. Construction in the study area would result in beneficial impacts related to the creation of jobs and increased spending. Some products used during construction of a project would be purchased locally, and some local firms and workers would likely be involved in construction. The number of jobs created would depend on type and size of buildings being constructed. Construction employment would be temporary, and the workers could come from anywhere in the region. Construction activities could result in increases in noise, dust, and visual impacts. Additionally activities could temporarily increase congestion and reduce parking, local access for businesses and residents, and access near the construction activities, which could negatively affect businesses, but businesses located close to construction activities could experience an increase in revenue from spending by construction workers. Depending on the reconstruction timeframe of NE Sunset Boulevard, residents in the adjacent area could experience noise, dust, visual, and congestion impacts. Access points across NE Sunset Boulevard would be maintained during construction, avoiding negative access impacts. However, roadway improvements along NE Sunset Boulevard could result in access issues that would require mitigation measures prior to construction to ensure that business access is maintained during construction. If the construction of improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard results in any changes to access to current businesses that do not allow the businesses to remain in their current location, or if any required acquisition would negatively affect the business, compensation would be provided under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and state law. The roadway improvements would result in additional temporary construction jobs beyond those related to redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area.
3.9.1.2 Operation Impacts With the Preferred Alternative, the Planned Action Study Area would be revitalized as a result of the updated infrastructure and civic improvements, which would result in benefits to those in the Planned Action Study Area and the surrounding area. The Preferred Alternative would improve commercial uses by providing new space and new potential customers/employees with the denser area and the addition of new dwelling units. The Preferred Alternative would add 2,339 dwelling units (2,073 units outside the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea), which is anticipated to increase the population by approximately 5,403 persons (4,788 outside the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) based on an average household size of 2.31. By 2030, with the Preferred Alternative, the population of the Planned Action Study Area would be 8,381 and would include 3,628 dwelling units. Refer to Chapter 2 for additional information. Increases in employment would result from new public and private investment in the Planned Action Study Area and the growth and land use capacity anticipated under the Preferred Alternative. By 2030, the Planned Action Study Area is anticipated to have 4,460 to 4,498 jobs, to which the Preferred Alternative would contribute between 3,154 and 3,192 jobs (3,075 jobs outside the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea). These jobs are based on an estimated increase in new commercial and civic/educational space of approximately 1,250,000 square feet (see Chapter 2 for additional information). Although the specific types of jobs that would be created are currently
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-31 April 2011
ICF 593.10
unknown, new retail and service businesses (e.g., restaurants, coffee shops, dentists, dry cleaners) are anticipated. It is likely that new jobs would be similar to those already existing (i.e., retail, services, and education). The new jobs would be available to all residents in the Planned Action Study Area and the surrounding region. The addition of new jobs could decrease the unemployment rate. Displacements would occur during redevelopment as properties are acquired and redeveloped. If residents or businesses are renting or leasing the space, they would be required to relocate. The majority of residents in the Planned Action Study Area are non-minority, in smaller households, and earning less than residents in the surrounding region. These are the populations that are most likely to be affected. If rental properties are acquired and redeveloped, those renting would be displaced. In general, no mitigation is required as long as the tenants are provided adequate notice. Many of the renters, both residential and business, likely entered into rent or lease agreements for a specified length of time, and the property owner would not have to renew the lease once the agreed upon timeframe has expired. Relocation assistance would be required where persons are displaced as a result of a federal action or an undertaking involving federal funds. Many of the population characteristics in the Planned Action Study Area would likely continue to mirror Renton as a whole, but median household income would likely increase with the greater number of affordable and market-rate units, attracting residents of all ages and incomes. The addition of new market-rate units could result in the Planned Action Study Area becoming less affordable to current residents. It is likely that many of the new units would be a combination of rented and owned units. The new dwelling units would increase the percentage of newer housing and the housing densities in the Planned Action Study Area, including apartments, condominiums, and townhome units, but decrease the percentage of lower density forms of housing (e.g., duplexes). As described in Chapter 2, the Preferred Alternative includes a family village that would include housing, education, recreation, and supportive services. These facilities would be designed to promote a healthy and walkable neighborhood. The family village would likely result in improved cohesion of the surrounding area by providing areas for the residents to gather and interact. The addition of the family village would likely attract families, resulting in a change in demographics in the Planned Action Study Area; consequently, this could increase the average household size. A greater number of senior citizens could reside in this area with the construction of the senior housing; daytime use for non-resident seniors would also increase with the addition of the day health center. The elder day health center would provide a beneficial service beyond the subarea to the Planned Action Study Area and the broader Renton community. The Preferred Alternative would improve NE Sunset Boulevard and include wider sidewalks, bicycle lanes in both directions, and transit facility improvements. Although the Preferred Alternative would widen the roadway, the access points would be maintained, and no new barriers to access would be created. These improvements would revitalize the Planned Action Study Area and improve overall cohesion. The addition of new community facilities, including parks/open space and the new library, would also benefit the Planned Action Study Area and provide new opportunities for residents to gather and interact. Improvements in the streetscape along NE Sunset Boulevard and other infrastructure improvements would make the study area more desirable to investment, which could lead to additional opportunities for employment as more businesses are attracted to the study area. For further discussions of community institutions and potential impacts during operation, refer to the parks and recreation analysis (Draft EIS Section 4.15) and public services analysis (Draft EIS Section 4.16).
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-32 April 2011
ICF 593.10
3.9.1.3 Indirect Impacts Construction spending would result in positive indirect effects on employment and income in the Planned Action Study Area and in the broader regional economy. Businesses that support the construction effort with building materials (e.g., cement, lumber, flooring) and equipment would likely see increased revenue. The exact types of businesses that would move to the Planned Action Study Area or the new businesses that would be started are not known at this time. It is likely that many of the unemployed residents in the Planned Action Study Area would apply for the new jobs. As the Planned Action Study Area redevelops, existing businesses could see an increase in business as more people move to the study area and new jobs are created. Redevelopment is anticipated to make the Planned Action Study Area a more attractive place to live and work and, consequently, could result in increases in rents for both residents and businesses. Some residents and businesses could be unable to afford the rent increases and need to relocate elsewhere. It is assumed that new development on private properties would be at the market rate; thus, the owners would be able to set the rate, and any increase would be dependent on the local economy and vacancy rate in the surrounding area. In addition, if any occupied businesses or residential units are acquired for redevelopment, tenants would receive proper notice and would likely remain until their current lease expires. For non-federal actions or undertakings, these businesses or residents would not be compensated and would be required to cover their own expenses for relocating, either within the Planned Action Study Area or elsewhere. (See Housing mitigation measures in Final EIS Chapter 1, Table 1-2.) However, additional public and private investment would increase spending and the degree of economic benefits. More diverse housing stock would lead to positive changes in the community and interaction of the residents. New development would improve cohesion in the Planned Action Study Area. This would be a result of the planned housing and employment growth as well as the planned amenities, which would act as gathering places. These improvements in cohesion would act as additional draws for the Planned Action Study Area, attracting new residents and visitors, thereby improving economics by generating additional sales and sales tax revenues. Because of the added market-rate units, some of the new households may have higher incomes and increase spending in the Planned Action Study Area. The improvements would likely contribute to an increase in property values in the study area. In addition, the infrastructure improvements and new development would attract more investment and possibly extend beyond the boundaries of the Planned Action Study Area. The increased attractiveness of the study area would likely result in increases in real estate prices and the number of market-rate dwelling units, making the study area unaffordable for some and resulting in unwanted relocations.
3.9.1.4 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative construction impacts would depend on when construction activities occur over the life of the 20-year planning period. If projects overlap or development continues at an even pace, the economic benefits would occur over a longer duration. If construction occurs quickly and a number of projects overlap, issues related to skilled labor shortages could result. During operation, cumulative effects would be positive with the addition of new development, which would continue to enhance the Planned Action Study Area and improve its vitality. Civic investment
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-33 April 2011
ICF 593.10
would result in ongoing improvements in community cohesion and spur growth in the Planned Action Study Area as it becomes a more desirable place to live and work.
3.9.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
3.9.2.1 Construction Impacts Demolition of the Sunset Terrace complex to allow for redevelopment would require relocation of the tenants. Some local businesses could lose sales during construction if the tenants are relocated outside of the immediate area. However, because the total number of relocations would represent a small portion of the overall population, any impact would likely be small in scale. As described under the Planned Action Study Area, it is likely that construction workers would frequent businesses, reducing potential negative impacts on local businesses. The relocation of the tenants would have short-term impacts on the cohesion of the subarea and the social interactions of the tenants, depending on where residents are located. Tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would be relocated prior to demolition of the complex. With federal funds being used to redevelop Sunset Terrace, the tenants would be offered relocation assistance in compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended. The purpose of this act is to ensure that those persons who are affected by property acquisitions under a project funded by the federal government are treated fairly, consistently, and equitably and that they do not suffer disproportionate injuries. Tenants will be provided certain relocation services and payments, which can include moving cost reimbursements, assistance finding comparable housing, and other assistance needed to minimize impacts associated with moving. Section 8 vouchers will be used for the relocation of tenants. Once the reconstruction is complete, relocated tenants would be offered spaces in the new development. Depending on the reconstruction timeframe of NE Sunset Boulevard, tenants could experience noise, dust, visual, and congestion impacts. Access points across NE Sunset Boulevard would be maintained during construction, avoiding negative access impacts for the tenants.
3.9.2.2 Operation Impacts for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would be similar to those described above for the Planned Action Study Area. The Preferred Alternative would redevelop approximately 376 dwellings. It is anticipated that there would be a net increase of 266 new dwelling units in the area, increasing population by 614 persons and creating between 79 and 117 new jobs. Population characteristics of the subarea would change to a greater degree than in the Planned Action Study Area because of the addition of affordable and market-rate units. It is likely that the median household income would increase with the addition of market-rate housing and lower the percentage of individuals below the poverty level. The addition of townhomes, which could create ownership opportunities, could slightly increase the percentage of owners; however, the percentage of renters is likely to continue to dominate. Housing characteristics in the subarea would be similar to those in the Planned Action Study Area, and these subarea improvements would improve cohesion and catalyze private reinvestment in the Planned Action Study Area. The new dwellings would substantially increase the percentage of newer housing stock in the subarea, making it more attractive for renters and owners.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-34 April 2011
ICF 593.10
The new community facilities would improve cohesion for the residents because tenants may feel more a part of the redeveloped community. They would also provide new locations for residents to gather and interact.
3.9.3 Mitigation Measures There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative.
3.10 Housing Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.
3.10.1 Planned Action Study Area
3.10.1.1 Construction Impacts Construction of commercial, residential, and civic uses in the Planned Action Study Area would create temporary noise, dust, and construction traffic, which would affect current residents. The potential for construction impacts in the Planned Action Study Area under the Preferred Alternative is similar to but slightly less than impacts under Alternative 3 given the slightly lower growth projections.
3.10.1.2 Operation Impacts Similar to Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative assumes that 40% of the study area acreage would infill or redevelop. This would result in the greatest number of dwellings being replaced (299 total). These would be located in the North, Central and South subareas (combined total of 163), followed by the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea (110), and lastly the Sunset Mixed Use subarea (about 26). The higher number of dwellings, compared with Alternative 2, is due largely to the inclusion of the family village concept in the North Subarea. Most properties in the study area are relatively more low cost than in other parts of Renton; new dwellings could be built at market rates, affordable, and public, such as the family village in the North Subarea as well as in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea (addressed in more detail below). It is expected that most of the 299 dwellings would be replaced on site with the redevelopment of the properties. There is a similar exception, noted for all Draft EIS alternatives, for about five single-family dwellings along NE Sunset Boulevard that would likely be converted to commercial uses. Also, similar to Alternatives 1 and 2, there are some vacant properties; redevelopment at higher densities could serve as replacement units. The Preferred Alternative would add up to approximately 2,339 new dwellings, about 181% more than the current number of dwellings, 57% more than Alternative 1, 41% more than Alternative 2, and 7% less than Alternative 3 (Table3.10-1). Most new units would be multifamily. Some units, as described under Construction Impacts, would be public or affordable.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-35 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Table 3.10-1. Current and Proposed Dwellings1—Preferred Alternative
Dwelling Type
Existing Land use 2030 Preferred Alternative: Total 2030 Preferred Alternative: Net Planned Action Study Area (total)
Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment (total)
Planned Action Study Area (total)
Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment (total)
Planned Action Study Area (net)
Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment (net) Single-family home 117 0 121 0 4 0 Multifamily unit in small building (1–4) 389 10 718 16 329 6 Multifamily unit in large building (≥ 5) 783 100 2,789 360 2,006 260 Total 1,289 110 3,628 376 2,339 266 1 Because of formulas and rounding, totals may slightly differ from estimates in Chapter 2.
3.10.1.3 Indirect Impacts Under the Preferred Alternative, the potential for residents to help support local businesses as well as create a demand for services is similar to but slightly less than that of Alternative 3 (the greatest of all the studied alternatives [3,796 total dwellings and 2,507 net dwellings]). Depending on the success of public and private reinvestment, which is anticipated to be greatest under both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3, another indirect impact could be additional pressure on existing housing to redevelop, beyond what is indicated in land capacity analysis and projections. However, as noted for the Draft EIS alternatives, the City monitors growth regularly through its Comprehensive Plan, and over the 20-year period of the Planned Action, the City would review trends at least two to three times.
3.10.1.4 Cumulative Impacts Growth in the study area would be greater than previously planned in the No Action Alternative but less than that of Alternative 3; this increase of 57% would contribute to meeting the City’s higher growth targets for 2031, which are to be addressed in the City’s next Comprehensive Plan Update.
3.10.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
3.10.2.1 Construction Impacts The redevelopment of the subarea would likely occur in phases, as described in Section 2.7.2.2. Construction of residential, commercial, and civic uses would create temporary noise, dust, and construction traffic, which would affect current residents, particularly those residents who remain during the construction of the earlier phase(s). Mitigation would be required to minimize effects, as noted for Draft EIS Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 (e.g., traffic control plans, construction site erosion control, and enforcement of City noise regulations).
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-36 April 2011
ICF 593.10
3.10.2.2 Operation Impacts In this subarea, 110 public housing and duplex dwellings would be eliminated. All public housing units would be replaced, with approximately 88 units replaced on site and 12 replaced off site. The number of units added would be 266 higher the number of existing dwellings (a total of 376 units). Of these, approximately 78% would be public and affordable, and 22% would be market-rate dwelling units.
3.10.2.3 Indirect Impacts The potential for residents to help support local businesses as well as create a demand for services is as noted for the Planned Action Study Area as a whole.
3.10.2.4 Cumulative Impacts With respect to meeting City growth targets, the level of assistance attributable to the new dwellings would be similar to that of the study area as a whole.
3.10.3 Mitigation Measures There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative.
3.11 Environmental Justice This section analyzes the impacts (beneficial and adverse) of the Preferred Alternative on environmental justice populations in the Planned Action Study Area in general and the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea specifically to determine if they would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on environmental justice populations. Impacts are discussed at two levels under each alternative: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts of developing proposed conceptual plans within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. In the Planned Action Study Area, growth is expected to be consistent with City plans, but the exact types of development are not known. Thus, the impact analysis is based generally on the types of impacts that would be expected with construction and operation. However, for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, conceptual plans have been prepared (see Figure 2-11 for the Preferred Alternative) and are evaluated.
3.11.1 Planned Action Study Area
3.11.1.1 Construction Impacts Mixed-use development at strategic nodes, in addition to residential uses and local-serving commercial development throughout the Planned Action Study Area, would result in dust, noise, and visual impacts on nearby residents from construction activities. Residents in proximity to construction on NE Sunset Boulevard would also be affected by dust, noise, visual, and traffic
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-37 April 2011
ICF 593.10
impacts. Because the Planned Action Study Area population is predominately non-minority and non-low income, these impacts would not be considered disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations. The demolition of the Sunset Terrace complex and construction of the Preferred Alternative’s conceptual plans would require relocation of the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex, likely through Section 8 vouchers. The Preferred Alternative would result in a relatively high level of growth and major public investment in infrastructure and public services throughout the Planned Action Study Area, similar to the level of growth and investment under Alternative 3. It would result in construction impacts that would be greater than those of Draft EIS Alternatives 1 and 2 but similar to those of Alternative 3.
3.11.1.2 Operation Impacts Residential, commercial, and recreational development as well as civic and infrastructure improvements under the Preferred Alternative would improve the overall neighborhood, making it a more cohesive and desirable place to live. Residents would have new areas to interact, and redevelopment would improve the overall visual quality of the Planned Action Study Area with the addition of new development. This would benefit all populations within the Planned Action Study Area, including minority and low-income populations. The improvements on NE Sunset Boulevard would improve access across the roadway and include wider sidewalks and bicycle lanes, resulting in improvements for those who walk or ride bicycles. The addition of new park facilities and the improvements on NE Sunset Boulevard could provide health benefits. This benefit would apply to all populations within the Planned Action Study Area. Similar to Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative would also include the creation of a family village in the North Subarea; this would provide opportunities for housing, education, recreation, and supportive services. The family village would also improve cohesion for residents by providing a new gathering place. The family village would be beneficial for all populations in the Planned Action Study Area, but these benefits could accrue to a greater degree for minority and low-income populations because of the proximity, especially for those without access to a vehicle. In addition, depending on the supportive services provided, these benefits would accrue to the minority and low-income populations in the Planned Action Study Area, especially if the services are focused on providing support to environmental justice populations. The addition of the new civic facilities would be a benefit for the entire community and act as a gathering place that would enhance community cohesion. In addition, the subarea residents would realize the beneficial effects associated with the improvements in the Planned Action Study Area. The roadway improvements would also be beneficial to all populations.
3.11.1.3 Indirect Impacts The new dwellings that would be constructed outside of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea may not include affordable housing for low-income populations. Temporary increases in employment related to construction would occur within the Planned Action Study Area, but these jobs may or may not directly benefit residences of the Planned Action Study Area because construction jobs require specific skills (e.g., the skills to work as an electrician, plumber, truck driver, or equipment operator).
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-38 April 2011
ICF 593.10
The introduction of new retail and commercial space within the Planned Action Study Area would increase employment opportunities. These opportunities would benefit all study area populations but could benefit minority and low-income populations to a greater degree. Also, minority and low-income populations would have access to the jobs to the same degree as the non-minority and non-low-income populations. However, because the types of jobs and wages are not known, it cannot be determined if these would be living-wage jobs or if they would be lower wage jobs that would not improve household incomes, especially for lower income households. This is not anticipated to result in any adverse impacts that could be disproportionately high and adverse.
3.11.1.4 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts would be primarily beneficial. As the Planned Action Study Area continues to redevelop with new investments, both public and private, it would become more desirable for the residents and continue to create new jobs. New development and the addition of more market-rate units could cause the Planned Action Study Area to become less affordable to lower income populations, which could result in these populations needing to relocate outside of the Planned Action Study Area.
3.11.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea This section discusses the impacts on environmental justice populations that are specific to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.
3.11.2.1 Construction Impacts Residents in proximity to NE Sunset Boulevard could be affected by construction. Impacts would be the same as those described above for the Planned Action Study Area. Demolition of the Sunset Terrace complex and construction of the Preferred Alternative would require relocation of the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex, likely through Section 8 vouchers. Because the tenants are low-income and predominately minority individuals, this would constitute a greater impact on these populations than it would on other populations. Relocation of the tenants, potentially outside of the immediate area, could also result in additional temporary impacts related to being farther from their jobs, social services, transit, and the community. Relocated tenants would be compensated through the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. This act establishes uniform, fair, and equitable treatment of displaced individuals and businesses. With this compensation, these impacts are not considered disproportionately high and adverse on minority or low-income populations. Tenants would be relocated prior to construction of each new housing phase; those tenants remaining during the construction of early redevelopment phases would be subject to impacts related to the noise and dust anticipated during demolition. However, no adverse impacts are anticipated because demolition activities would need to comply with all local, state, federal regulations, which could include removal of lead-based paint and ACMs. During construction, none of the impacts would be considered disproportionately high and adverse because the relocated tenants would be provided assistance, as described above. In addition, impacts associated with construction activities would be temporary, and mitigation measures would be included to minimize them.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-39 April 2011
ICF 593.10
3.11.2.2 Operational Impacts With the implementation of the Preferred Alternative, the 100 existing Sunset Terrace public housing units would be replaced at a 1-to-1 ratio on site or in the surrounding neighborhood. An additional 10 duplex units would be redeveloped with townhouse-style housing that could be affordable or market rate. Current public housing and duplex tenants would be offered the opportunity to move into new units in the subarea, which would occur in a rebuilt mixed-use setting with new parks/open space, new landscaping and pedestrian facilities, a senior day health center, and a new library and/or community service facility. There would be beneficial health effects associated with the new housing, especially if the old housing (constructed in 1959) contains any lead-based paint or ACMs. Beneficial effects for minority and low-income populations in the subarea would include redevelopment of the existing dwelling units, construction of additional units, transportation improvements, and the addition of other community facilities (i.e., a senior day health center and parks). These changes would result in improvements to public health and the aesthetics of the subarea. Furthermore, these would improve community cohesion for subarea residents. Because no adverse impacts are anticipated, there are no impacts that would be considered disproportionately high and adverse. Subarea residents would realize the beneficial effects associated with improvements in the Planned Action Study Area. These beneficial effects would accrue to all populations, including minority and low-income populations, in particular, and include the improvements along NE Sunset Boulevard related to wider sidewalks, the bicycle facilities, transit improvements for those who rely on other modes of travel, and the addition of new parks and open space. Additionally civic facilities would be a benefit for the entire Renton community, including those outside of the subarea, and would serve as gathering places that would enhance community cohesion. Because the improvements would result in beneficial effects, no adverse impacts and, therefore, no disproportionately high and adverse impacts are anticipated during operation.
3.11.2.3 Indirect Impacts New retail and commercial space would be located outside of the subarea, but the new employment opportunities could be more beneficial to subarea residents who may be unemployed or without a vehicle. Therefore, they would benefit more from the proximity. Because the types of businesses that would be located in the subarea and the corresponding wages of the jobs they would provide are unknown, the extent of benefits to low-income individuals cannot be determined. The new job opportunities could provide health care benefits for those who were formerly unemployed; however, if newly employed individuals are not offered health benefits, or they decide not to participate in the health care plan because of the costs associated with it, they would lose access to public assistance. In this case, the potential loss of access to health care would be an adverse impact. Increasing the variety of residential unit types and affordability levels would reduce the concentration of low-income households in the subarea and thereby reduce or eliminate some of the social consequences of such concentrations.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-40 April 2011
ICF 593.10
3.11.2.4 Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impacts identified above under the Planned Action Study Area are not anticipated within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea because the public housing units would be replaced and other affordable, public, and market-rate units would be developed. Public units would be administered by RHA. The beneficial cumulative impacts identified above under the Planned Action Study Area would be similar.
3.11.3 Mitigation Measures There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative.
3.12 Aesthetics Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.
3.12.1 Planned Action Study Area
3.12.1.1 Visual Character Similar to Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative would result in public and private development that would take full advantage of the current development regulations, which would cause a long-term transition to a mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented neighborhood with higher density than the current development pattern. The Preferred Alternative would result in slightly less growth than Alternative 3 overall, which would result in less change to the existing visual environment. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, the Preferred Alternative would distribute growth mostly to the Sunset Mixed Use Subarea. However, there would be a slight redistribution of growth from the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea to the Central Subarea because the Preferred Alternative would relocate Sunset Court Park from its current location in the Central Subarea to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, and correspondingly, the current park site would become available for redevelopment into housing units. Similar to Alternative 3, the right-of-way for NE Sunset Boulevard would be expanded to make room for additional pedestrian amenities such as bike lanes, planted medians, and enlarged sidewalks, all of which would provide increased aesthetic appeal to the area. The urban density anticipated to result from the Preferred Alternative would be similar to, but slightly less than, Alternative 3. The application of adopted design standards as new construction gradually replaces older buildings would result in an overall improvement of the visual environment in the Planned Action Study Area. Overall, changes to visual character would be within the range of the Draft EIS alternatives.
3.12.1.2 Height and Bulk Similar to Alternative 3, the tallest building heights under the Preferred Alternative would occur on property zoned CV, which is concentrated in the Sunset Mixed Use, Central, and Potential Sunset
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-41 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Terrace Redevelopment subareas. In these areas, the Preferred Alternative would result in building heights up to five stories, which is a moderate increase over the prevailing pattern of one- to three-story buildings. Similar to the Draft EIS alternatives, heights along NE Sunset Boulevard are very likely to reach 60 feet because residential buildings in this area are required to include ground-floor retail uses (RMC 4-2-080A73). Relocation of Sunset Court Park under the Preferred Alternative would provide a greater amount of open space in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, which would reduce the visual bulk of redevelopment in this location. The current park site, located in the Central Subarea, would become available for redevelopment, increasing building heights and visual bulk at this location. Overall, the Preferred Alternative would result in result in less growth within the Planned Action Study Area than Alternative 3, and changes to height and bulk are anticipated to be within the range of the Draft EIS alternatives.
3.12.1.3 Shade and Shadow Under the Preferred Alternative, heights in the Planned Action Study Area would generally increase, creating localized increases in shading over current conditions. Similar to Alternative 3, taller buildings in the Planned Action Study Area have the potential to shade pedestrian areas and public spaces, especially along NE Sunset Boulevard. Public spaces, such as school playfields and parks, could also be shaded, but these areas are typically surrounded by zoning districts that do not permit building heights over 30 feet, limiting the potential for severe shading effects. An exception is the current Sunset Court Park site, which is surrounded by CV zoning. Under the Preferred Alternative, Sunset Court Park would be relocated to a larger site in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, thereby reducing the potential for shading effects in the park. However, the current park site would then become available for redevelopment, which would increase the potential for on-site shading effects and shading of adjacent buildings. Similar to Alternative 3, the application of development regulations and mitigation measures, such as upper-story setbacks and roof-form modulation, will be necessary to minimize shading impacts at this location.
3.12.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
3.12.2.1 Visual Character Similar to Alternative 3, the visual character of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would change from its current state to a pedestrian-oriented community with a mix of residential, ground-floor commercial, and community uses. The Preferred Alternative would focus less residential development in the subarea than Alternative 3, making room for a larger neighborhood park. As described in Chapter 2, the Preferred Alternative would vacate a portion of Harrington Avenue NE and Glenwood Avenue NE to create a 2.65-acre central park at Sunset Terrace. While the Preferred Alternative would extensively change the visual character of the subarea, the reduction in residential development and increase in park space, compared with Alternative 3, would result in an overall improvement to the visual environment that would be within the range of the Draft EIS alternatives.
3.12.2.2 Height and Bulk Building height and bulk within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under the Preferred Alternative would range from one to four stories, which is similar to Alternative 3. The
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-42 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Preferred Alternative, however, would provide much more park space than Alternative 3, providing a sense of openness to the Sunset Terrace site. In addition, buildings on the site would be arranged to place two-story townhomes adjacent to the park and taller multifamily residential buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard, creating a height transition and reducing the visual prominence of the development when viewed from the park. The proposed site layout of the Preferred Alternative is illustrated in Figure 2-11. The Preferred Alternative would also offer reduced visual bulk over Alternative 3 at the RHA property on Glenwood Avenue NE, northwest of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex. Rather than a single large structure, the Preferred Alternative would include two multifamily buildings in scale with the nearby apartment complexes along Edmonds Avenue NE and two townhome buildings, the heights of which would be compatible with the adjacent duplexes along Glenwood Avenue NE. Overall, the Preferred Alternative would direct less density into the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea than Alternative 3 and provide a greater amount of open space, which would keep height and bulk in the area within the range of the Draft EIS alternatives.
3.12.2.3 Shade and Shadow Similar to Alternative 3, anticipated increases to building heights under the Preferred Alternative are likely to change shading conditions in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. As described under Alternative 3, taller buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard would cast longer shadows on the interior of the subarea to the north, potentially shading sidewalks along Sunset Lane NE. However, the increased size of the central park under the Preferred Alternative, as well as the placement of two-story townhomes adjacent to the park, would reduce the potential for adverse shading effects compared with Alternative 3. Also, as illustrated in Figure 2-11, the proposed site layout for the Preferred Alternative would reduce height conflicts and shading effects on surrounding development by locating taller buildings away from nearby residences and using shorter buildings as a buffer. Overall, shading effects in the subarea would be more limited than under Alternative 3, placing the Preferred Alternative within the range of the Draft EIS alternatives.
3.12.3 Mitigation Measures There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative.
3.13 Historic/Cultural Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.
3.13.1 Planned Action Study Area Impacts on cultural resources in the Planned Action Study Area under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those described in the Draft EIS. The Preferred Alternative supports a level of
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-43 April 2011
ICF 593.10
neighborhood growth similar to but slightly less than Alternative 3. Development would proceed in more locations than Alternative 2 but fewer locations than Alternative 3. It would still likely involve ground disturbance and modifications to buildings and structures, which could result in a potentially significant impact on cultural resources. Under the Preferred Alternative, there would be more opportunities to encounter cultural resources over time than under the No Action Alternative but fewer than under Alternative 3. Because of the potential to affect unknown cultural resources, detailed review of potential impacts on cultural resources would still be required on a project-specific basis. No significant cultural resources are known to exist in the Planned Action Study Area, except for the property identified as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP): 2825 NE Sunset Boulevard. Future development in the study area would not affect any known NRHP-eligible archaeological or historic resources, unless it occurs on the same parcel as the resources or results in the discovery of a previously unknown resource. As with the other studied alternatives, the potential for impacts on unknown cultural resources under the Preferred Alternative cannot be measured. The only archaeological or historic resource surveys that have been completed in the study area include a survey of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, a survey of the Hillcrest Terrace Community Building project at 1430 Hillcrest Lane NE (part of a separate environmental assessment),2
All alternatives accommodate future growth in the Planned Action Study Area, which could occur on any property in the Planned Action Study Area and have the potential to affect unknown cultural resources. Therefore, potential impacts on unknown cultural resources would be the same under the Preferred Alternative as the other alternatives, although the rate and timing of these impacts would vary.
and a survey of potential development sites on Kirkland Avenue NE between 15th and 16th streets, 2902 NE 12th Street, and 1104 Harrington Avenue NE (see Final EIS Appendix G). The latter two surveys have been completed since issuance of the Draft EIS. None of these studies identified the presence of significant cultural resources. Other portions of the study area have not been surveyed.
3.13.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Future development in the subarea under the Preferred Alternative would have no impact on any known NRHP-eligible archaeological or historic resources, and the likelihood of impacts on unknown cultural resources is considered low. These conclusions are based on the results of the archaeological investigations and the historic resources survey completed for the subarea (Draft EIS Appendix J). Development in the subarea would have the same low potential to affect cultural resources under any alternative, either through infill development on vacant sites or through redevelopment of the subarea.
2 At the time of this Draft EIS, RHA is considering the addition of a community and laundry building on its Hillcrest Terrace site north of NE 16th Street and west of Kirkland Avenue NE. As an independent action, it is undergoing its own NEPA environmental review process. A finding of No Significance was issued in February 2011 by the City of Renton and is available at the lead agency offices (see Final EIS fact sheet for contact information). Section 106 consultation showed that the Hillcrest Terrace site is not considered to be an eligible historic resource.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-44 April 2011
ICF 593.10
3.13.3 Mitigation Measures Mitigations measures and conclusions of adverse impact under the Preferred Alternative would be the same as those described in the Draft EIS and presented in Chapter 1 of this Final EIS. A clarification on mitigation measures related to unanticipated discoveries is included in Chapters 1 and 4 of this Final EIS.
3.14 Transportation Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Future-year traffic impacts with and without project improvements are evaluated in this section. The future-conditions analysis is conducted for two horizon years: 2015 and 2030.
3.14.1 Planned Action Study Area
3.14.1.1 Study Area The Planned Action Study Area is the same as that analyzed in the Draft EIS. It includes roadways that are within the jurisdictions of the City and WSDOT and represent existing traffic conditions in the core of the Planned Action Study Area. The traffic study area is bordered by NE 12th Street to the north, NE Sunset Boulevard to the south, Monroe Avenue NE to the east, and Edmonds Avenue NE to the west. Study area intersections are shown in Figure 3.14-1 and listed in Table 3.14-1.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-45 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Figure 3.14-1. Traffic Study Area and Study Intersections
Table 3.14-1. Study Intersections Intersection # Intersection Jurisdiction Control 1 NE Sunset Blvd and NE Park Dr WSDOT Signalized 2 NE Sunset Blvd and Edmonds Ave NE WSDOT Signalized 3 NE Sunset Blvd and Harrington Ave NE WSDOT Signalized 4 NE Sunset Blvd and NE 10th St WSDOT Signalized 5 NE Sunset Blvd and Kirkland Ave NE WSDOT OWSC 6 NE Sunset Blvd and NE 12th St WSDOT Signalized 7 NE Sunset Blvd and Monroe Ave NE WSDOT OWSC 8 Edmonds Ave NE and NE 12th St City AWSC 9 Harrington Ave NE and NE 12th St City AWSC 10 Kirkland Ave NE and NE 12th St City AWSC OWSC = one-way stop control; AWSC = all-way stop control
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-46 April 2011
ICF 593.10
3.14.1.2 Trip Generation and Distribution Trips generated by the Preferred Alternative in the Planned Action Study Area were estimated using the City’s version of the Puget Sound Regional Council regional travel forecasting model, with applied future-year proposed land uses. This methodology is consistent with the forecast modeling process described for Alternative 1 (No Action), Alternative 2, and Alternative 3 in the Draft EIS. In 2030, the Preferred Alternative would have approximately 850 more households or dwellings than Alternative 1 but approximately 170 fewer households or dwellings than Alternative 3, the bookends of the Draft EIS analysis. The Preferred Alternative is also expected to have approximately 2,240 additional employment positions compared with Alternative 1 but 180 fewer employment positions than Alternative 3. Roughly 40% of the households and employment positions expected as part of the Preferred Alternative would be in place by 2015. Using the future-year regional travel forecasting model to evaluate the Preferred Alternative, an overall growth rate for traffic in the Planned Action Study Area was calculated for both 2015 and 2030. Compared with Alternative 1 volumes, traffic under the Preferred Alternative would be approximately 4% higher in 2015 and approximately 9% higher in 2030. These growth rates were applied to base traffic volumes at each intersection to develop future Preferred Alternative volumes. Traffic expected under the Preferred Alternative would be less than traffic estimated for Alternative 3 because of fewer households and employment positions. In both 2015 and 2030, Preferred Alternative traffic would be approximately 1% lower than traffic under Alternative 3. Future traffic patterns in the Preferred Alternative would be different from Alternative 1 but similar to Alternative 3 at multiple intersections along NE Sunset Boulevard. The proposed design of the Preferred Alternative would include closing (vacating) Harrington Avenue NE between NE Sunset Lane and NE 10th Street. This closure would likely reduce the number of vehicles that use Harrington Avenue NE to reach NE Sunset Boulevard because the direct connection would be severed. Vehicles that head southbound on Harrington Avenue NE would likely be diverted to NE 10th Street (or possibly Edmonds Avenue NE) to access NE Sunset Boulevard. The signalized intersection at NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE would essentially provide a connection for local traffic only, whereas the signalized intersection at NE 10th would likely become the main access route for local traffic destined for points north of the Planned Action Study Area. Approximately 80% of traffic to and from the north leg of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE would be shifted to the NE 10th Street intersection because of the closure. The Preferred Alternative design would restrict vehicles from crossing NE Sunset Boulevard at Kirkland Avenue NE. This intersection currently allows access to and from all approaches. As part of the proposed design, a dedicated eastbound left-turn pocket on NE Sunset Boulevard would be created to provide refuge for vehicles headed northbound on Kirkland Avenue NE. This turn pocket would restrict westbound vehicles on NE Sunset Avenue from making a left turn onto Kirkland Avenue NE southbound, and vehicles on Kirkland Avenue NE would no longer be able to cross NE Sunset Boulevard. Kirkland Avenue NE would be restricted to right-in, right-out access only. Traffic displaced by the proposed turn pocket would be routed through adjacent study intersections to their intended destinations. Access safety improvements would be implemented on NE Sunset Boulevard. The center two-way left-turn lane would be replaced with a managed left-turn lane and median that would provide left turns at intersections and high-volume driveways. This design would reduce the number of possible
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-47 April 2011
ICF 593.10
conflict points between opposing directions of traffic and likely improve safety along the corridor. With fewer conflict points, the design would likely improve mobility within the traffic study area.
3.14.1.3 Operational Analysis Future-year traffic impacts with project improvements are analyzed in this section. The analysis evaluates the Preferred Alternative, which assumes the proposed improvements and developments within the Planned Action Study Area are in place and that traffic generated by these developments are on the street network. Level of service (LOS) results of the proposed Preferred Alternative are also compared with results of Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 as documented in the Draft EIS. Traffic operations for the Preferred Alternative are analyzed assuming the same signal timing as currently employed by the City. This existing signal timing and phasing provides a conservative analysis of future operations. Future conditions analysis of the Preferred Alternative is conducted for the weekday PM peak hour for two horizon years: 2015 and 2030. In 2030, two intersections would operate at LOS F under the Preferred Alternative. Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street would have approximately 96 seconds of delay per vehicle. This is 39 seconds more per vehicle than the level of delay under Alternative 1 but 3 seconds less than the level expected under Alternative 3. Vehicles at Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street are expected to have approximately 67 seconds of delay with the Preferred Alternative. This is 2 seconds per vehicle less than the level of delay that would be experienced by vehicles under Alternative 3 but an increase of approximately 31 seconds per vehicle compared with Alternative 1. LOS under the Preferred Alternative would degrade to LOS F from LOS E (under Alternative 1). In 2015, average delay at Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street would be approximately 54 seconds per vehicle. This is 2 seconds less than the vehicle delay under Alternative 3 (56 seconds per vehicle) but 11 seconds per vehicle greater than Alternative 1 and would result in a one-level drop to LOS F. The expected operational LOS and delay results under the Preferred Alternative are presented in Table 3.14-2.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-48 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Table 3.14-2. Intersection Operations—Preferred Alternative
Int # Intersection Control Preferred Alternative PM Peak 2015 2030 LOS Delay(s) LOS Delay(s) 1 NE Sunset Blvd and NE Park Dr Signalized A 9.2 B 11.5 2 NE Sunset Blvd and Edmonds Ave NE Signalized B 12.0 B 13.7 3 NE Sunset Blvd and Harrington Ave NE Signalized A 6.6 A 8.2 4 NE Sunset Blvd and NE 10th St Signalized B 14.6 C 20.2 5 NE Sunset Blvd and Kirkland Ave NE OWSC B 10.3 B 11.0 6 NE Sunset Blvd and NE 12th St Signalized C 24.1 D 36.9 7 NE Sunset Blvd and Monroe Ave NE OWSC B 15.0 C 15.6 8 Edmonds Ave NE and NE 12th St AWSC F 54.2 F 96.3 9 Harrington Ave NE and NE 12th St AWSC D 34.6 F 67.1 10 Kirkland Ave NE and NE 12th St AWSC B 12.8 B 14.2 OWSC = one-way stop control; AWSC = all-way stop control; LOS = level of service. Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle.
Bold type indicates results worse than the City LOS D threshold. LOS at Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street and at Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street would be worse than the City’s LOS D threshold as a result of the increase in trips generated by the Preferred Alternative. The additional trip demand on the traffic study area network during the PM peak would exceed capacity at the affected intersections. Intersection turning-movement volumes, delay, and LOS are presented in Figures 3.14-2 and 3.14-3, while the detailed intersection analysis results are included in Final EIS Appendix H.
3.14.1.4 Construction Impacts Potential impacts that could result from Preferred Alternative construction activities include increased traffic volumes, increased delays, detours, and road closures. These activities are the same as described for Alternative 3 in the Draft EIS. During construction, vehicles would be needed to bring equipment and materials to the Planned Action Study Area. Large, heavy, slow-moving trucks carrying materials and equipment would likely need to access the site via NE Sunset Boulevard. Oversized trucks could require pilot vehicles as they travel to and from the freeway with large loads. These trucks may also require flaggers to manually divert or control traffic as they enter or exit roadways (due to large turning radii). This traffic maintenance would cause delays for motorists. Lane closures in both directions of NE Sunset Boulevard could be required during construction of the Preferred Alternative. This reduction in capacity would likely increase travel times and may force reroutes through lower volume local streets. Depending on the necessary workforce, an increase in the number of personnel vehicles may also affect traffic operations within the Planned Action Study Area, especially during the PM peak when construction ends for the day.
1NE Sunset Blvd & NE Park Dr2NE Sunset Blvd & Edmonds Ave NE231381033 124 44 6 9505447114513726501411320644515978LOSDelay (s)LOSDelay (s)2015 Pref Alt (PM) A 9.2 2015 Pref Alt (PM) B 12.03NE Sunset Blvd & Harrington Ave NE4NE Sunset Blvd & NE 10th St433393414284301820112333315832521615611540697013415315515LOSDelay (s)LOSDelay (s)2015 Pref Alt (PM) A 6.6 2015 Pref Alt (PM) B 14.65NE Sunset Blvd & Kirkland Ave NE6NE Sunset Blvd & NE 12th St63531548819297941298989210821345679NE SunsetBlvdNE SunsetBlvdNE Park DrEdmonds Ave NENE SunsetBlvdHarrington Ave NENE Sunset BlvdNE 10th StNE ENdvlBtesnuS 12th St39186911240143761332611217LOSDelay (s)LOSDelay (s)2015 Pref Alt (PM) B 10.3 2015 Pref Alt (PM) C 24.17NE Sunset Blvd & Monroe Ave NE8Edmonds Ave NE & NE 12th St9Harrington Ave NE & NE 12th St10Kirkland Ave NE & NE 12th St049383736327842042276341803058145578332182301781544816344641262341818181385951416481027210111641LOSDelay (s)LOSDelay (s)LOSDelay (s)LOSDelay (s)2015 Pref Alt (PM) B 15.0 2015 Pref Alt (PM) F 54.2 2015 Pref Alt (PM) D 34.6 2015 Pref Alt (PM) B 12.8Not to Scale10821345679NNE SunsetBlvdNE SunsetBlvdNE Park DrEdmonds Ave NENE SunsetBlvdHarrington Ave NENE Sunset BlvdNE 10th StNE SunsetBlvdKirkland Ave NENE Sunset BlvdNE 12th StMonroe Ave NENE ENdvlBtesnuS 12th StEdmonds Ave NENE 12th StHarrington Ave NENE 12th StKirkland Ave NE1 Study Intersection Number Study Intersection Location Signalized Instersection Stop Controlled Intersection/Approach Turning Movement Direction125 Turning Movement VolumeLOS Level of ServiceDelay Intersection Delay in secondsLEGEND1(Overall delay for signalized locations,worst approach for stop-controlled locations)Figure 3.14-2 PM Peak-Hour Traffic—2015 Preferred AlternativeSunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
1NE Sunset Blvd & NE Park Dr2NE Sunset Blvd & Edmonds Ave NE261691135 136 48 7 104305191160430326945145256596150169LOSDelay (s)LOSDelay (s)2030 Pref Alt (PM) B 11.5 2030 Pref Alt (PM) B 13.73NE Sunset Blvd & Harrington Ave NE4NE Sunset Blvd & NE 10th St463634454196311990212456413952727710821057668017438418565LOSDelay (s)LOSDelay (s)2030 Pref Alt (PM) A 8.2 2030 Pref Alt (PM) C 20.25NE Sunset Blvd & Kirkland Ave NE6NE Sunset Blvd & NE 12th St6656654790010784611898910110821345679NE SunsetBlvdNE SunsetBlvdNE Park DrEdmonds Ave NENE SunsetBlvdHarrington Ave NENE Sunset BlvdNE 10th StNE ENdvlBtesnuS 12th St21257131441173381636721418LOSDelay (s)LOSDelay (s)2030 Pref Alt (PM) B 11.0 2030 Pref Alt (PM) D 36.97NE Sunset Blvd & Monroe Ave NE8Edmonds Ave NE & NE 12th St9Harrington Ave NE & NE 12th St10Kirkland Ave NE & NE 12th St079686769397272362979361833550240652453194311802054029344153275361020205346471611502069312121761LOSDelay (s)LOSDelay (s)LOSDelay (s)LOSDelay (s)2030 Pref Alt (PM) C 15.6 2030 Pref Alt (PM) F 96.3 2030 Pref Alt (PM) F 67.1 2030 Pref Alt (PM) B 14.2Not to Scale10821345679NNE SunsetBlvdNE SunsetBlvdNE Park DrEdmonds Ave NENE SunsetBlvdHarrington Ave NENE Sunset BlvdNE 10th StNE SunsetBlvdKirkland Ave NENE Sunset BlvdNE 12th StMonroe Ave NENE ENdvlBtesnuS 12th StEdmonds Ave NENE 12th StHarrington Ave NENE 12th StKirkland Ave NE1 Study Intersection Number Study Intersection Location Signalized Instersection Stop Controlled Intersection/Approach Turning Movement Direction125 Turning Movement VolumeLOS Level of ServiceDelay Intersection Delay in secondsLEGEND1(Overall delay for signalized locations,worst approach for stop-controlled locations)Figure 3.14-3PM Peak-Hour Traffic—2030 Preferred AlternativeSunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-51 April 2011
ICF 593.10
3.14.1.5 Transit The Preferred Alternative would include improved transit amenities along NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE compared with existing conditions. At both Edmonds Avenue NE and at NE 10th Street along NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE south of NE Sunset Boulevard, expanded bus zones in both directions of travel would provide larger waiting areas for transit users and be conveniently located near residential or retail land uses. Bus zones and existing bus stops could include shelters with adequate lighting and street furniture. All bus stops within the Planned Action Study Area would be improved to meet accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Transit stops are located adjacent to pedestrian and bicycle facilities, which encourages the use of alternative modes of travel. Special pavement in the roadway would clearly identify transit stops on NE Sunset Boulevard.
3.14.1.6 Nonmotorized Facilities Under the Preferred Alternative, nonmotorized facilities, such as bicycle lanes and pathways, sidewalks, and marked crosswalks, would be improved. A 12-foot-wide multi-use trail would be provided on the north side of NE Sunset Boulevard from Edmonds Avenue NE to Monroe Avenue NE to accommodate pedestrians and bikes. A 5-foot-wide designated bicycle lane would be provided in the eastbound direction of NE Sunset Boulevard between NE Park Drive and NE 10th Street. This eastbound bike lane would improve safety for bicyclists riding up the steep grade between NE Park Drive and NE 10th Street. Design elements such as bike route signage, bike storage lockers, and bicycle detection at signalized intersections are included to promote bike ridership and safety. Pedestrian improvements under the Preferred Alternative would include reconstructed sidewalks and planter strips or landscaping buffers along NE Sunset Boulevard and most traffic study area roadways. An 8-foot-wide planter area would separate an 8-foot-wide sidewalk from the roadway, contributing to a more comfortable environment for walking along the state highway. In some locations, the existing chain link fence would be replaced with a vegetated trellis on top of walls along sidewalks to create a more inviting environment for pedestrians. Furthermore, pedestrian-scale lighting would improve safety and walkability. Sidewalk connections from NE Sunset Boulevard to side streets would be improved, strengthening the connectivity between the residential areas and NE Sunset Boulevard. To improve safety for pedestrians crossing the roadways, the Preferred Alternative would include special paving at crosswalks and intersections. Special paving can more clearly identify pedestrian areas and alert drivers to proceed with caution, which can contribute to a safer pedestrian environment. All curb ramps within the project area would meet ADA accessibility requirements. Pedestrian-supportive signals, such as count-down heads and audible signals, would be provided with the Preferred Alternative to improve safety for pedestrians crossing the roadways at signalized intersections. Other pedestrian-level design amenities such as benches, trash receptacles, wayfinding signs, and art would be incorporated to encourage pedestrian activity in the Planned Action Study Area.
3.14.1.7 Sustainability In consideration of the emerging best practices in the United States for addressing sustainability at the municipal level, sustainability metrics were used to evaluate the alternatives. The Greenroads Rating System is a sustainability evaluation metric to certify the “sustainability” of roadways. (See the Draft EIS for a description of the Greenroads rating system.) The Greenroads evaluation for the
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-52 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Preferred Alternative is found in Final EIS Appendix H. The Preferred Alternative scores a minimum of 33 and a maximum of up to 99 out of 118 points in the Greenroads metric; therefore, it meets the minimum Greenroads certification level and could achieve the highest level of certification (Evergreen). Similar to Draft EIS Alternatives 2 and 3, the Preferred Alternative scores most strongly in the “Access and Equity” section of the Greenroads evaluation because improving access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users is an important element of this alternative. Similar to Draft EIS Alternatives 2 and 3, improving walkability, pedestrian connections, and transit facilities as part of the Preferred Alternative is likely to contribute to lower consumption of energy by encouraging more pedestrian activity and less vehicle travel. The Preferred Alternative is similar to Alternative 3 in that it typically includes higher levels of improvements or higher quality of improvements over Alternative 2, such as wider sidewalks, wider planting areas, and special paving.
3.14.1.8 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Growth would increase in comparison to Comprehensive Plan land use estimates; however, the operational analysis is based on a model that addresses growth cumulatively on the City’s current and planned roadway system. Potential cumulative impacts are greater than Alternative 1 but less than Alternative 3. These impacts can be mitigated to meet City of Renton thresholds.
3.14.2 Mitigation Measures
3.14.2.1 Operational Mitigation In 2030, the intersections on NE 12th Street at Edmonds Avenue NE and at Harrington Avenue NE are expected to operate at LOS F under the Preferred Alternative. This exceeds the LOS D mobility standard during the PM peak hour. The turn-lane capacity improvements and demand management strategies at Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street described in the Draft EIS are valid and applicable mitigation measures for the Preferred Alternative. An additional southbound left-turn pocket and westbound right-turn pocket would improve operations to LOS E, while added pedestrian- and bicycle-oriented paths or multi-use trails to encourage mode shifts would likely improve operations to LOS D. At the Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street intersection, the eastbound and westbound approaches could be restriped to increase the number of lanes and, therefore, the capacity of the intersection. With implementation of the suggested mitigation measures described in the Draft EIS, this intersection would improve to LOS D. Please see Final EIS Chapter 1 for a list of mitigation measures applicable to all studied alternatives.
3.14.2.2 Construction Mitigation Temporary mitigation during construction may be necessary to ensure safe travel and manage traffic delays. Because the Preferred Alternative would likely have identical construction impacts as Alternative 3, the construction mitigation measures described in the Draft EIS are valid and
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-53 April 2011
ICF 593.10
applicable to the Preferred Alternative. Please see Final EIS Chapter 1 for a list of mitigation measures applicable to all studied alternatives.
3.14.3 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea In the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, traffic delay times could worsen slightly over Alternative 1 because of the increase in trips generated by the Preferred Alternative, but intersections would likely operate better than the LOS D threshold because the volumes and growth would be similar to those of Alternative 3. On the southern border of the subarea, the intersections on NE Sunset Boulevard at Harrington Avenue NE and at NE 10th Street are expected to operate better than LOS B in 2015 and better than LOS C in 2030. These intersections serve as a gateway into and out of the subarea. Stop-controlled intersections within the subarea are likely to have lower volumes and more capacity than either intersection on NE Sunset Boulevard. Because these locations likely carry low, mainly residential volumes and are not nearing their capacities, they are not expected to operate worse than LOS D.
3.15 Parks and Recreation Park and recreation impacts are discussed at two levels for the Preferred Alternative: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts of developing proposed conceptual plans within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. The basis for comparing these impacts are Renton’s adopted park and recreation LOS standards, which are outlined in Section 3.15 of the Draft EIS. This section discusses the future conditions of park and recreation facilities within the Planned Action Study Area and the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under the Preferred Alternative. Study area facilities are evaluated for future conditions (2030) by applying the City’s park and recreation LOS standards. Future deficiencies or surpluses in park and recreation facilities provide the basis for determining what type and how much of each facility could be added to the Planned Action Study Area to serve the forecast population. Anticipated future LOS conditions for park and recreation facilities for the Preferred Alternative were calculated by applying the same methodology used to evaluate the three alternatives discussed in the Draft EIS. Refer to Section 4.15.1 of the Draft EIS for the background discussion of the LOS calculation methodology. Table 3.15-1 summarizes the LOS for parks within the Planned Action Study Area under existing and future conditions for each alternative; Figure 3.15-1 illustrates the location and service area around the parks consistent with adopted LOS standards. Table 3.15-2 summarizes the LOS for recreation facilities (fields, courts, and trails). It should be noted that ballfield and sport court LOS standards are applied citywide; thus, a lack of such facilities within the Planned Action Study Area or the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea does not indicate an LOS deficiency. Refer to Final EIS Appendix I for the park and recreation LOS calculations. The mitigation measures under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those discussed in the Draft EIS for Alternatives 2 and 3. Refer to Chapter 1 of the Final EIS for the summary of mitigation measures for park and recreation facilities. These mitigation measures address construction impacts as well as improved availability or access to parks and recreation facilities in the Planned Action Study Area and the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.
Highlands Park
Sunset Court
Park
North Highlands
Park
McKnight Middle
School
Hillcrest
Elementary
Highlands
Elementary
Windsor
Hills Park
Heritage Park
Liberty Park
Cedar River Park
Kiwanis Park
Kennydale
Lions Park
Sierra Heights
Park
May Creek Park
Gene Coulon Memorial
Beach Park
Cedar River Natural AreaI-405 FRWYUNION AVE NENE 4TH ST
NE 12TH ST
EDMONDS AVE NEPARK AVE NN E 3 R D S T MONROE AVE NENE SUNSET BLVD
N 8TH ST
N 4TH ST
S E 9 5 T H W A Y
JONES AVE NEN 3RD STLOGAN AVE NNE P A R K D RABERDEEN AVE NESUNSET BLVD NEHOUSER WAY NNE 6TH ST
NE 27TH ST
PELLY AVE NN 30TH ST
N E 20TH STLAKE WASHI
NGTON BLVD NNE 19TH ST
NE 31ST ST
WELLS AVE NNE 7TH ST
N 6TH ST
N
1
S
T
S
T
NE 9TH ST 126TH AVE SEN E 1 6 T H S T
NE 6TH PL
WILLIAMS AVE SMAIN AVE SSUNSET BLVD NOLYMPIA AVE NEUNION AVE SENE
1ST ST
NE 22ND PLNE 22ND ST
NE 21ST ST
GARDEN AVE NN 28TH PL
NE 5TH PL
S E 4 T H S T
SE 2ND PL
NE 10TH ST
N 2ND ST
N 26TH ST
N E 8 T H S T
NE 5TH ST
NE 24TH ST
N 28TH ST
NE 17TH ST
NE 11TH ST
S E 2 N D C T
SE 93RD ST
BURNETT AVE NMILL AVE SINDEX AVE NENE 2ND ST
SE 3RD ST
I
NDEX AVE SEN E 8 T H P L
KIRKLAND AVE NENE 9TH PL
SE 1ST PL
SE 98TH ST
NE 2ND PL
NE 25TH ST
NE 30TH ST
NE 27TH PL
NE 1ST PL
NE 4TH CT
NE 26TH PL
NE 4TH PL
NE 13TH ST
N E 1 1 T H S T
NE 8TH ST
N E 5 T H S TGARDEN AVE NNE 10TH ST
NE 8TH ST
I-405 FRWYSE 4TH ST
NE 16TH ST
Figure 3.15-1
Parks and Recreation Facility Service Areas
Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
Source: City of Renton
00593.10/GIS - Revised: 2/23/2011City Limits
Planned Action Study Area
Water
Parcels
Parks and Recreation Facilities
School Sports Field (approx. area)
Sunset Court
Service Area (0.5 mile)
North Highlands Park
Service Area (0.5 mile)
Highlands Park
Service Area (1 mile)
0 500 1,000
Feet
±
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-55 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Table 3.15-1. Existing and Future Level of Service for Park Facilities in Planned Action Study Area
Name Type
Existing (2006/2010) Alternative 1 (2030) Alternative 2 (2030) Alternative 3 (2030) Preferred Alternative (2030) Service Area Study Areaa Service Area Study Areaa Service Area Study Areaa Service Area Study Areaa Service Area Study Areaa North Highlands Park and Neighborhood Center
Neighborhood Parkb Population 4,493 2,124 7,959 4,578 8,131 4,856 9,829 6,255 9,518 5,978 LOS 5.39 2.55 9.55 5.49 9.76 5.83 11.79 7.51 11.42 7.17 Surplus/ Deficiency -2.75 +0.09 -6.91 -2.85 -7.12 -3.19 -9.15 -4.87 -8.78 -4.53 Highlands Park and Neighborhood Center
Community Parkc, d Population 19,642 2,978 31,302 6,417 31,645 6,808 34,022 8,768 33,574 8,381 LOS 49.11 7.45 78.26 16.04 79.11 17.02 85.06 21.92 83.94 20.95 Surplus/ Deficiency -32.71 +2.96 -67.86 -5.64 -68.71 -6.62 -74.66 -11.52 -73.54 -10.55 Sunset Court Parke Neighborhood Parkb Population 5,629 2,828 10,303 6,093 10,679 6,464 12,837 8,325 11,917 6,950 LOS 6.75 3.39 12.36 7.31 12.81 7.76 15.40 9.99 14.30 8.34 Surplus/ Deficiency -6.25 -2.89 -11.86 -6.81 -12.31 -7.26 -14.90 -9.49 -11.65 -5.69 + = facility surplus; - = facility deficiency LOS results are in acres. Service area population is estimated and does not account for density. a Calculation includes only area of Planned Action Study Area within service area. b Neighborhood Park LOS: 1.2 acres/1,000 persons, service area: 0.5 mile c Community Park LOS: 2.5 acres/1,000 persons, service area: 1–2 miles d Community Park LOS calculated using 2000 Census. Calculations do not account for population density. 1 mile service area used for calculating Community Park LOS. e For the Preferred Alternative only, LOS calculations for Sunset Court Park include the relocated and larger central park.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-56 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Table 3.15-2. Existing and Future Levels of Service for Recreation Facilities in Planned Action Study Area
Type of Facility
Number of Facilities in Study Area
Existing (2010) Alternative 1 (2030) Alternative 2 (2030) Alternative 3 (2030) Preferred Alternative (2030) Study Area Population: 2,978 Study Area Population: 6,417 Study Area Population: 6,808 Study Area Population: 8,768 Study Area Population: 8,381 Without school With schoola Without school With schoola Without school With schoola Without school With schoola Without school With schoola Without school With schoola Baseball/ softball fieldsh
1 fields 6 fields LOSb 1.32 2.85 3.03 3.9 3.72 Surplus/ Deficiency -0.32 4.68 -1.85 3.15 -2.03 2.97 -2.9 2.1 -2.72 2.28 Football/soccer fieldsh 1 fieldf 4 fields LOSc 0.99 2.14 2.27 2.92 2.79 Surplus/ Deficiency 0 3.01 -1.14 1.86 -1.27 1.73 -1.92 1.08 -1.79 1.21 Tennis courtsh 3 courts 6 courts LOSd 1.19 2.57 2.72 3.51 3.35 Surplus/ Deficiency 1.81 4.81 0.43 3.43 0.28 3.28 -0.51 2.49 -0.35 2.65 Walking/ hiking trails
0.35 mile 0.35 mile (approx.)g LOSe 0.6 1.28 1.36 1.75 1.68 Surplus/ Deficiency -0.25 (-0.6) -0.25 (-0.6) -0.93 (-1.28) -0.93 (-1.28) -1.01 (-1.36) -1.01 (-1.36) -1.4 (-1.75) -1.4 (-1.75) -0.48 (-0.83) -0.48 (-0.83) + = facility surplus; - = facility deficiency. a The City does not categorize school property at parks and recreation facilities. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative, potential joint-use agreements between the City of Renton and Renton Schools could be implemented to combine school and park facilities and achieve the LOS standard. b Baseball/softball field LOS: 1 field/2,250 persons. c Football/soccer field LOS: 1 field/3,000 persons. d Tennis court LOS: 1 court/2,500 persons. e Walking/hiking trails LOS: 0.2 mile/1,000 persons. f Classified as a multi-use field but could likely accommodate soccer. It is unknown whether dimensions would satisfy football field standards. g Total without parentheses includes trails located in park facilities. Within the Planned Action Study Area, there are no trails located in school facilities. The total within parentheses excludes trails located in park facilities. h Ballfield and sport court LOS standards are applied citywide; thus a lack of such facilities within the Planned Action Study Area or the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea does not indicate an LOS deficiency.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-57 April 2011
ICF 593.10
3.15.1 Planned Action Study Area The forecast increase in population in the Planned Action Study Area is about 5,400 people under the Preferred Alternative. A corresponding increase in demand for park and recreation facilities is expected under the Preferred Alternative. Although there is an increase in community park acreage with the relocation Sunset Court Park to Sunset Terrace and the addition of a new multi-use trail (4,500 feet) along the western side of NE Sunset Boulevard, under the Preferred Alternative, there would continue to be a deficiency in neighborhood and community park acreage in the Planned Action Study Area (Table 3.15-1) and a deficiency in fields, courts, and trails (Table 3.15-2). However, the deficiencies are less than those for Draft EIS Alternative 3, which considered a similar population but proposed fewer park facilities. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, as discussed in Section 4.15 of the Draft EIS, opportunities to increase park land and recreation facilities within the Planned Action Study Area could include combining school recreation facilities with park facilities through joint-use agreements. Refer to Section 4.15 of the Draft EIS for the discussion regarding joint-use agreements. Within the Planned Action Study area, a “pocket park” system (Figure 2-18) could be created through a combination of publicly owned properties and vacant properties, along with pedestrian connections between blocks, a sidewalk network, and green connections. Stormwater elements could be incorporated into open space areas within the Planned Action Study Area under the Preferred Alternative. Under current policy, park property with co-located or integrated stormwater management facilities cannot be counted toward park/recreation acreage for purposes of meeting park LOS. See the water resources analysis (Final EIS Section 3.3) for a discussion of combining facilities.
3.15.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, without additional park and recreation facilities added to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, the forecast population in this subarea would remain underserved with respect to parks and recreation facilities. However, under the Preferred Alternative, Sunset Court Park would be relocated to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Additionally, this park would be expanded from 0.5 acre to 2.65 acres. This would increase the acreage in neighborhood parkland for this subarea and the Planned Action Study Area. Similar to Alternative 3, NE Sunset Boulevard would be improved to include bike lanes, intersection improvements, and sidewalks, providing a more walkable corridor and more direct access route between residential areas and parkland. Under the Preferred Alternative, the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would be underserved, according to the results when applying the City’s parks and recreation LOS standards. Stormwater elements would be incorporated into park and recreation facilities within the Planned Action Study Area under the Preferred Alternative. See the water resources analysis (Final EIS Section 3.3) for a discussion of combining facilities. However, stormwater management facilities cannot be counted toward park/recreation acreage for purposes of meeting park LOS.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-58 April 2011
ICF 593.10
3.15.3 Mitigation Measures There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative.
3.16 Public Services Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.
3.16.1 Planned Action Study Area
3.16.1.1 Police Because the Preferred Alternative would involve development within the range of alternatives considered in the Draft EIS, construction-related impacts would be similar to those described for other alternatives in the Draft EIS and would fall within the range of Alternatives 2 to 3. Population in the Planned Action Study Area would increase by approximately 5,403 compared with existing conditions, resulting in a need for approximately 8.6 additional police officers when applying the Renton Police Department standard. This increase in police service need and increase in response time resulting from traffic congestion would fall within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3.
3.16.1.2 Fire and Emergency Medical Services Construction impacts and indirect impacts on response time would fall within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3, comparable to the relative amount of growth anticipated. Similar to other alternatives, centrally located Fire Station 12 and planned construction of other fire facilities, which could provide backup service to the Planned Action Study Area, would ensure that the City would maintain its fire and emergency medical service response time LOS under this alternative. Applying the fire service’s staffing ratio to growth under the Preferred Alternative results in the need for an additional 1.2 firefighter full-time equivalent positions, slightly less than Alternative 3.
3.16.1.3 Education Both the McKnight Middle School expansion and the reconfiguration of the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center into part of the family village concept, as anticipated under Alternative 3, would be part of the Preferred Alternative. Similar to Alternative 3, the Early Education Program at the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center would likely be temporarily moved as part of the reconfiguration of that facility. Population growth under the Preferred Alternative would result in an increase of approximately 526 students at area Renton School District schools compared with existing conditions. This falls within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3. Growth in student population would have a similar but lesser impact on English Language Learners Program space than Alternative 3. The growth in student population would be accommodated by the district’s planned capital improvements at the elementary, middle, and high school levels, including a reconfigured Hillcrest Early Childhood
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-59 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Center as part of a family village concept that addresses both K-12 grades and early childhood education, as well as the fall 2011 opening of Honey Dew Elementary and the expansion of McKnight Middle School.
3.16.1.4 Health Care Population growth under the Preferred Alternative would fall within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3, resulting in the need for an estimated 4.1 additional hospital beds based on the existing hospital-beds-per-district population ratio. This would represent an increase in beds within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3. Similarly, the additional population growth considered under the Preferred Alternative would result in increased demand at the nearby Valley Medical Center primary care and urgent care clinics that falls within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3. As with other alternatives, there may be temporary changes to nonmotorized and motorized access to health care services during infrastructure construction (e.g., NE Sunset Boulevard), but alternative routes would be established.
3.16.1.5 Social Services The Preferred Alternative would include major public investments that would create redevelopment opportunities and possibly expand upon or enhance social services within the Planned Action Study Area, similar to Alternative 3. Among the key components of the Preferred Alternative outside of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea is development of a family village in the North Subarea. The benefits and impacts on social services of development of the family village concept under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those described under Alternative 3 of the Draft EIS. In addition, similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, improvements to streetscapes, including sidewalks, nonmotorized facilities, and transit shelters in the Planned Action Study Area, would provide similar long-term benefits and temporary disruptions to accessibility of social services as those of Alternatives 2 and 3. The population increase anticipated within the Planned Action Study Area under the Preferred Alternative falls within the range of the alternatives considered in the Draft EIS, and the expanded or enhanced social services in this Planned Action Study Area, described above, would accommodate the higher demand.
3.16.1.6 Solid Waste The Preferred Alternative provides for an amount of redevelopment and civic investment falling within the range of Alternatives 2 and 3, resulting in levels of construction-related waste generation falling within the range of those alternatives. Solid waste generation under the Preferred Alternative would increase by around 129,689 pounds of waste per week compared with existing conditions, approximately 9,300 fewer pounds per week than Alternative 3. As with other alternatives, a percentage of the waste would be diverted to recycling.
3.16.1.7 Public Library Relocation of the Highlands Library would have a similar temporary impact in library services as the other alternatives. Growth anticipated under the Preferred Alternative would create a demand for an additional 1,940 square feet of library space compared with existing conditions. This is slightly less than the demand for library space under Alternative 3. Similar to Alternative 3, it is anticipated
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-60 April 2011
ICF 593.10
that the planned improvements to the Renton Highlands Library, in combination with the planned new Newcastle Library located north of the Planned Action Study Area, would account for the Preferred Alternative level of growth considered in this King County Library System geographic cluster.
3.16.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
3.16.2.1 Police Construction impacts and indirect impacts on police response time for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would be the same as for the Planned Action Study Area as a whole. Under the Preferred Alternative, population in the subarea would grow by approximately 614 compared with existing conditions. Applying the Renton Police Department standard to this population increase would account for 1.0 of the approximately 8.6 additional police officers described under the Planned Action Study Area, above, falling within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2.
3.16.2.2 Fire and Emergency Medical Services Construction impacts and indirect impacts on response time for this subarea would be the same as for the Planned Action Study Area as a whole. The subarea’s proximity to Fire Station 12 makes response time unlikely to be adversely affected in this portion of the Planned Action Study Area. Applying the fire service’s staffing ratio to the Preferred Alternative’s population growth in the subarea would account for 0.14 of the 1.2 firefighter full-time equivalent positions needed in the overall Planned Action Study Area, falling within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2.
3.16.2.3 Education The 2011 opening of Honey Dew Elementary could change where elementary students living in this subarea attend elementary school, similar to all other alternatives. The Preferred Alternative would have a similar temporary construction impact as that of Alternative 3 on accessibility to the Early Childhood Program for subarea children in that program. Population growth in the subarea under the Preferred Alternative would result in increases in student population in the subarea and demand on the Renton School District’s English Language Learners Program within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. Approximately 60 additional students would be located in the subarea compared with existing conditions. Capital improvements described in the Planned Action Study Area, above, would provide the additional student capacity to accommodate these additional students.
3.16.2.4 Health Care Under the Preferred Alternative, the increase in subarea population would result an increase in hospital bed demand and demand for service at the nearby Valley Medical Center primary care and urgent care clinics that falls within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. Demand for hospital beds in the subarea would increase by 0.5 bed over existing conditions, a less-than-significant impact on health care service.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-61 April 2011
ICF 593.10
3.16.2.5 Social Services Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, redevelopment of the subarea would displace the existing on-site community meeting space that is currently used for on-site social service programs. However, as with those other alternatives, the space would be replaced onsite or nearby with a larger and more modern facility, and phasing of development as described in Chapter 2 could minimize or avoid disruption to on-site social service programs. Redevelopment plans for the subarea, under the Preferred Alternative, include the relocated and expanded Highlands Library, a senior day health center, and some additional community service/retail space, some of which could be devoted to community or social services. Space could be used for social services or other facilities providing meeting/gathering space. Overall, the amount of space devoted to community or social services within the subarea would fall within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2, but additional community space anticipated in Alternative 3, such as the family village, would be located outside but nearby the subarea. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, the residents of the subarea would benefit from infrastructure improvements that would make walking and transit use more viable and increase residents’ access to social services located outside the subarea. The Preferred Alternative would result in increased demand for social services that falls within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2.
3.16.2.6 Solid Waste The redevelopment of the subarea anticipated under the Preferred Alternative would generate a similar amount of construction-related waste as Alternatives 2 and 3, under which the entire subarea would be redeveloped. Solid waste generation under the Preferred Alternative would increase by around 14,750 pounds per week, falling within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. As with other alternatives, a percentage of this waste would be diverted to recycling.
3.16.2.7 Public Library Space for library services is available in the proposed Preferred Alternative conceptual plan for the subarea (Figure 2-11). Growth in population in the subarea would account for approximately 221 square feet of additional library facility space compared with existing conditions, falling within the range of Alternatives 1 and 2. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, the King County Library System’s plans to increase the size of the Renton Highlands Library by approximately 8,408 square feet would accommodate this level of population increase.
3.16.3 Mitigation Measures There are no new mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Draft EIS. Refer to Final EIS Chapter 1 for a summary of the mitigation measures that would be incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative.
3.17 Utilities Impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed at two levels: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-62 April 2011
ICF 593.10
3.17.1 Planned Action Study Area The Preferred Alternative shows a similar amount of growth in the Planned Action Study Area to Alternative 3. Anticipated growth would result in an increase in residential population of 5,404 persons (181% over existing population) and in employment population of 3,154 persons by 2030.
3.17.1.1 Water With the growth projected for the Preferred Alternative, the increase in the average daily demand (ADD) is projected to be 0.56 million gallons per day (267% over existing ADD), and the peak daily demand (PDD) is projected to increase by 1.07 million gallons per day (267% over existing PDD). The existing booster pump stations that supply the Highlands 435 and Highlands 565 pressure zones, in which the Planned Action Study Area is located, have sufficient supply capacity to meet the projected growth in demand. The primary impact of subarea redevelopment on the water distribution system is increased fire-flow requirements. Water system pressure in some areas within the Planned Action Study Area may not be adequate for multistory development and/or for development with fire sprinkler systems, unless new water mains are extended from the higher-pressure Highlands 565 pressure zone. As noted for the other alternatives in the Draft EIS, the growth projected for the Preferred Alternative would also increase the existing storage deficit in the Highlands 435 pressure zone, and the development that is projected for the Planned Action Study Area would increase the fire-flow requirements and associated storage requirements with more multifamily development and commercial development. The mitigation measures summarized in Final EIS Chapter 1 to extend the Highlands 565 pressure zone to meet the fire-flow requirements also apply to the Preferred Alternative.
3.17.1.2 Wastewater The increase in wastewater load under the Preferred Alternative for the Planned Action Study Area is 0.59 million gallons per day (170% of existing load). This increase in wastewater load is not expected to affect the wastewater interceptors that provide conveyance of wastewater from the Planned Action Study Area, but the increased wastewater load under the Preferred Alternative could increase surcharging that is currently experienced and observed within the Planned Action Study Area. The mitigation measures summarized in Final EIS Chapter 1 to alleviate the surcharging within the Planned Action Study Area also apply to the Preferred Alternative.
3.17.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The Preferred Alternative shows anticipated growth in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea that is slightly less than Alternative 2. The projected growth would result in an increase in residential population of 614 persons (277% of existing) and in employment population of 79 persons.
3.17.2.1 Water The increase in ADD for this subarea would be 0.05 million gallons per day (270% of existing ADD), and the increase in the PDD would be 0.09 million gallons per day (270% of existing PDD). The
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-63 April 2011
ICF 593.10
primary significant impact of subarea development on the water distribution system would be related increased fire-flow requirements. These increased fire-flow requirements are substantial and cannot be met by the existing distribution system serving the subarea. Water system pressure provided by the 435 pressure zone within the subarea is not adequate for multistory development and/or for development with fire sprinkler systems. New water mains extended from the higher-pressure 565 pressure zone system to service the subarea would need to be phased to accommodate the Preferred Alternative. The mitigation measures summarized in Final EIS Chapter 1 to meet the fire-flow requirements also apply to the Preferred Alternative. A more detailed discussion of needed water system improvements and possible phasing of those improvements are provided in Section 3.17.3 below.
3.17.2.2 Wastewater Under the Preferred Alternative, the increase in wastewater load in this subarea is 0.05 million gallons per day (256% of existing load). Similar to the Planned Action Study Area, no impacts on the interceptors that provide conveyance from this subarea are expected, but the increased sewer load could impact local sewers within this subarea. The mitigation measures summarized in Final EIS Chapter 1 to alleviate the surcharging within the Planned Action Study Area as a whole and this subarea in particular also apply to the Preferred Alternative. A more detailed discussion of needed sewer system improvements is provided in Section 3.17.3 below.
3.17.3 Mitigation—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment
Subarea
3.17.3.1 Water Renton fire and building codes mandate minimum fire flows, durations, and pressure prior to occupancy of new structures. In the case of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea these mandated flows dictate substantial upgrades to the water distribution system. When the fire flow required for a new development exceeds 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm), the City also requires that the mains providing that fire flow be looped. Looped water mains provide more reliability and higher pressures under fire-flow conditions. City regulations also require installation of fire hydrants along all arterials such as NE Sunset Boulevard. Taken together these code requirements would lead to a series of new water mains connected to the 565 pressure zone and extended to the various redevelopment projects within the subarea. It is not possible to predict the precise timing and sequencing of these redevelopment projects. The following paragraphs illustrate one scenario of water main sequencing that could meet fire-flow requirements.
Edmonds-Glenwood Phase 1 Phase 1 of the Edmonds-Glenwood redevelopment project consists of townhomes along Glenwood Avenue NE. Fire-flow requirements for this project are expected to be in the range of 2,500 gpm. The existing water system in Glenwood Avenue NE cannot provide that amount of fire flow. A new 12-inch-diameter water main would be required to be extended from Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street in the 565 pressure zone, south along Harrington Avenue NE, and continuing along
City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3‐64 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Glenwood Avenue NE past and through the project site, about 800 feet of new pipe (Segment A on Figure 3.17‐1).
New Library A new library is proposed in the northeast quadrant of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE. If the fire‐flow requirements for the new library are about 2,500 gpm or less, then the existing 12‐inch‐diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard could meet that requirement.
New Mixed‐Use Building Adjacent to New Library A new mixed‐use community service/retail/residential structure is proposed adjacent to the new library between NE Sunset Boulevard, NE 10th Street, and Sunset Lane NE. It is reasonable to expect that the combination of additional structure size and exposure (to the library) would mandate fire flows for this building in excess of 2,500 gpm. In that case, a looped system of mains from the 565 pressure zone would be required. This could be achieved by extending new mains from the existing 12‐inch‐diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard northwesterly on both Harrington Avenue NE and NE 10th Street to Sunset Lane NE. The loop could then be connected by installing a new 12‐inch‐diameter main in Sunset Lane NE from Harrington Avenue NE to NE 10th Street. The existing water main in Sunset Lane NE could then be abandoned in place. This new loop would be about 700 feet in total length (Segment B on Figure 3.17‐1).
RHA’s Piha Site Fire flows required for the PIHA site development have not been established. If the flow requirement is 2,500 gpm or less, then it could be met by extending a new 12‐inch‐diameter main in NE 10th Street past the site to Harrington Avenue NE. The extension could either be from NE Sunset Boulevard (if the project precedes the mixed use development adjacent to the library). Or it could be from Sunset Lane NE, if the project occurs after the mixed use development adjacent to the library. The length of pipe required from Sunset Boulevard would be about 500 feet; from Sunset Lane NE it would be about 350 feet. (Segment C on Figure 3.17‐1) It is possible that required fire flows for the PIHA site would exceed 2,500 gpm. In that situation a looped main system would be necessary. There are multiple scenarios to meet the looping requirements. Those fire flow looping scenarios depend largely on the timing and sequencing of the PISA site project; i.e. does it precede or follow other redevelopment projects contemplated for the project area. Under one scenario, if the PIHA site development precedes construction of Phase II and III of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment looping could be achieved by extending another main (in addition to Segment C, discussed above) north on Harrington Avenue NE to Glenwood Avenue NE (Segment H on Figure 3.17‐1). If PIHA site development follows Phases II and III of Sunset Terrace, looping could be achieved by simply connecting the PIHA main extension in NE 10th Street (Segment C) with Segment E at the intersection of Harrington Avenue NE and NE 10th Street. Under another scenario, the PIHA site development could proceed before all other projects. In that case the cost of looping would not be shared with other projects as described in the preceding paragraphs and the PIHA site project would need to install either a “long‐term” or a “temporary” 12‐inch‐diameter “stand alone” water main loop.
City of Renton Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3‐65 April 2011
ICF 593.10
The “long‐term” alignment would be to extend a 12‐inch‐diameter main in Harrington Avenue NE connecting to the existing high‐pressure water line in NE Sunset Blvd. This option would result in the installation of a new water main in the section of Harrington Avenue NE that is proposed to be vacated to help create the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Neighborhood Park. The new 12‐inch‐diameter water main would be looped around the west and north side of the new PIHA site building and extended southerly in Sunset Lane NE to NE 10th Street, then southeasterly in NE 10th Street to connect back to the existing 12‐inch‐diameter line in Sunset Boulevard NE. (Segment P1 on Figure 3.17‐1)This new looped water main would be able to deliver about 5,000 gpm. A temporary route (which is not the preferred option) to provide 5,000 gpm to the same site would be to extend two parallel 12‐inch‐diameter water lines in NE 10th Street from the existing 12‐inch‐diameter line in Sunset Boulevard NE, along with a looped water main around the west and north side of the building, and a 12‐inch‐diameter line in Sunset Lane NE connecting back to the second new 12‐inch‐diameter main in NE 10th Street. (Segment P2 on Figure 3.17‐1)
Sunset Terrace Redevelopment It is reasonable to assume that the fire flows required for the Sunset Terrace redevelopment would exceed 2,500 gpm, mandating installation of a looped system. In addition, Sunset Terrace abuts NE Sunset Boulevard, triggering the requirement to install hydrants every 400 feet along that arterial. It may be possible to phase the Sunset Terrace redevelopment in a manner that would allow early elements of the redevelopment to be constructed without looping the water mains (see Edmonds‐Glenwood Phase 1, above). In any case, all mains serving the redevelopment would be extended from the 565 pressure zone. Initially, a new water main would be installed in Sunset Lane NE from Harrington Avenue NE to Glenwood Avenue NE (about 750 feet). This presumes that the new main in Harrington Avenue NE discussed in the Mixed‐Use Building section, above, has been installed. The existing water main in Sunset Lane NE could be abandoned in place (Segment D on Figure 3.17‐1). Looping the system could be achieved by extending the main from the intersection of Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE along the newly aligned NE 10th Street to Harrington Avenue NE (about 250 feet) (Segment E on Figure 3.17‐1). This presumes that the water main extension in NE 10th Street to serve RHA’s Piha site has already be installed. There are two ways to install the required fire hydrants along NE Sunset Boulevard. One option would be to extend the 12‐inch‐diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard from Harrington Avenue NE along the Sunset Terrace frontage (about 800 feet). This would be the most expensive option. Another option would be to extend fire hydrant leads southwesterly through the Sunset Terrace project from Sunset Lane NE to NE Sunset Boulevard at the appropriate intervals (Segments F on Figure 3.17‐1). This would be the least expensive option for two reasons: First, the pipes would not be installed in a street avoiding significant restoration costs. Second, the pipes could be smaller because they would be single purpose and not part of the City’s transmission/distribution system.
Edmonds‐Glenwood Phase 2 Fire‐flow requirements for the Edmonds‐Glenwood Phase 2 project are expected to be about 4,000 gpm, triggering the requirement to loop the water system. There are two options to meet this looping requirement: north or south.
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-66 April 2011
ICF 593.10
The north option would involve extending the 12-inch-diameter main from Phase 1 westerly through the site to Edmonds Avenue NE. From there, the main would be extended north in Edmonds Avenue NE to NE 12th Street, then east in NE 12th Street to Harrington Avenue NE, a distance of more than 1,500 feet (Segment G on Figure 3.17-1). The south option would begin in the same manner by extending the Phase 1 main through the project site. Looping would be achieved by installing two new mains. One would extend from Sunset Lane NE north in Glenwood Avenue NE to the Phase 1 pipe. The other would extend northwesterly in easements adjacent to NE Sunset Boulevard and Edmonds Avenue NE from the northern-most fire hydrant lead installed for the Sunset Terrace project through the Phase 2 site. (A more expensive option would be to install this same section of pipe in the rights-of-way of NE Sunset Boulevard and Edmonds Avenue NE.) These loops would also comprise more than 1,500 feet of new pipe (Segment H on Figure 3.17-1).
Water Main Costs The cost of installation for new water mains is driven by many factors. Water mains installed in roads are more expensive than water mains installed within project or open space areas, because of the cost savings of avoiding conflicting utilities and restoring the road surface. New water main costs are also affected by whether they are standalone or part of a suite of infrastructure improvements. If the project is only installing a new water main, then all of the excavation, bedding, installation, and other costs are borne by that project. If the project involves installation of the other underground utilities such as sewers or storm sewers, the costs common to the project can be spread across each utility facility being installed. The cost of water mains is also affected by the project sponsor. If the project is being constructed by a private developer, new water mains are less expensive. If the project is sponsored by a government agency, numerous statutes make new water main projects more expensive. The City’s recent experience with standalone water main projects in a major arterial indicate costs per foot of about $200 to $250. Applying these costs to the water main improvement described above would indicate costs in the range of $1 to 1.2 million. The improvements would be implemented with City and developer funding.
3.17.3.2 Wastewater Mitigation issues related to wastewater fall into three broad categories: upsizing, rehabilitation, and relocation. Wastewater flows (forecast for the Planned Action Study Area, including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) indicate that some existing sewer pipes must be replaced with larger pipes. One of those pipes is in Harrington Avenue NE. This sewer pipe would be replaced by the City as part of the overall Sunset Terrace redevelopment to accommodate forecast flows. Manholes along the Harrington alignment would be carefully designed and located to avoid interference with the planned park. The collection sewers in Sunset Lane NE are at or near the end of their design life. The condition of these sewers would be assessed to determine if they can be rehabilitated in place or if new pipes would need to be installed.
SR 900NE 12th St
Edmonds Ave NEHarrington Ave NENE 9th Pl Glenwood Ave NESunset Ln NEPri v ate Rd
Harrington Pl NEAccess RdNE 10th Pl
NE 10th St
NE 9th pl Aly
Glenwood Aly NEFerndale Cir NEPrivate RdSunset Ln NEAccess RdNE 10th St
Figure 3.17-1
Fire-Flow Phasing�Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS
0 100 200 300 400
Fe et
Fireflow Phase
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H Existing Water Pipes
Building
Renton_Parcels
Streets
P1
P2
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-68 April 2011
ICF 593.10
The redevelopment concept proposes narrowing and shifting the alignment of Sunset Lane NE. If this action leaves the existing sewers too close to new structures, then the City would require that a new sewer main be installed within the new right-of-way of Sunset Lane NE.
3.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of
Resources The analysis of “irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources” is the same as that for the Draft EIS. Implementation of the proposals to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community and revitalize the Planned Action Study Area through civic and infrastructure investment and additional private reinvestment would result in trade-offs between short-term environmental losses and long-term gains. Implementation of the proposals—redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community as part of a broader neighborhood Planned Action, encouraging neighborhood land use growth, public service and infrastructure improvements, and a streamlined environmental review process—would require a commitment of natural, physical, energy, human, and fiscal resources that could be irreversible and irretrievable. The importance of these actions would vary, depending on the scarcity of the resources and their ability to be reclaimed. The proposed commitment of natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources is anticipated to result in benefits. Residents, businesses, and employees of the Planned Action Study Area and Renton residents and businesses would benefit from 1) the replacement of antiquated and dilapidated Sunset Terrace public housing with a new mixed-income, mixed-use development and 2) revitalization of the overall Planned Action Study Area through civic and infrastructure investments and growth. In addition, the proposals would include measures that would meet sustainability goals (e.g., mixed-use development that reduces GHG emissions, green infrastructure that improves stormwater quality, and transportation improvements that promote active and healthy lifestyles).
3.19 Local Short-Term Uses of Environment and
Long-Term Productivity The analysis of “local short-term uses of environment and long-term productivity” is the same as that for the Draft EIS. Short-term environmental consequences include construction impacts of new housing, commercial, and mixed-use development, and infrastructure improvements such as roadway, drainage, water, sewer, and other facilities. Short-term construction effects would include temporary displacement and relocation of residents and businesses; generation of noise, dust, and erosion; and potential traffic rerouting. However, mitigation measures would be incorporated into the design and approvals to minimize these potential impacts. Long-term benefits include a more cohesive pattern of residential and commercial redevelopment and neighborhood revitalization that would replace antiquated and dilapidated housing, provide opportunities for healthy active lifestyles, and increase local employment. Stormwater master
City of Renton
Chapter 3. Environmental Review of Preferred Alternative
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3-69 April 2011
ICF 593.10
planning would achieve net improvements in stormwater treatment. NE Sunset Boulevard would be revised with access management and aesthetic appeal. Mixed-use development would result in a reduction in energy use and GHG emissions at a regional level.
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4-1 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Chapter 4
Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS
This chapter includes Draft EIS clarifications or corrections based on responses to the comments presented in Chapter 5 of this Final EIS or based on City or consultant review of the Draft EIS information. The clarifications or corrections are organized in the same order as the Draft EIS sections and by page numbers. The sources of the clarifications or corrections are noted for each amendment. The clarifications or corrections do not change the relative impacts of the Draft EIS alternatives or the overall Draft EIS conclusions.
4.1 Fact Sheet and Other Front Matter Consultant clarifications on required approvals in Fact Sheet:
Page FS-3, Required Approvals, correct agency name for air quality and construction permits:
Puget Sound Regional CouncilClean Air Agency
Asbestos surveys
Demolition permits
4.2 Draft EIS Chapter 1 Where appropriate, changes made to other chapters or subsections identified below are made in track changes in Chapter 1.
4.3 Draft EIS Chapter 2 Where appropriate, changes made to other chapters or subsections identified below are made in track changes in Chapter 2.
4.4 Draft EIS Chapters 3 and 4 Corrections and clarifications are noted in each subsection below.
4.4.1 Earth No clarifications or corrections are included.
4.4.2 Air Quality No clarifications or corrections are included.
City of Renton
Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4-2 April 2011
ICF 593.10
4.4.3 Water Resources No clarifications or corrections are included.
4.4.4 Plants and Animals In response to comments made by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division (Chapter 5, Letter 12), the following clarifications and corrections are made regarding Johns Creek.
Section 3.4.1.1, Planned Action Study Area, page 3.4-2, replace Figure 3.4-1 to show fish presence
at the mouth of Johns Creek. See revised Figure 3.4-1 at the end of this chapter.
Section 3.4.1.1, Planned Action Study Area, page 3.4-3, amend the first and second paragraphs as
follows: Aquatic habitat in the analysis area was reviewed with reference to aerial photographs, zoning maps, the National Wetlands Inventory maps maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2010), “Best Available Science” reviews prepared during the 2003–2004 revision of the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance, StreamNet (2010) and Salmonscape (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2010b) database query results, the Final Adopted May Creek Basin Action Plan (King County and City of Renton 2001), and further information on fish distribution (Tabor et al. 2006). No aquatic habitat has been identified within the Planned Action Study Area, but aquatic habitat does occur in the form of streams in Johns Creek, Honey Creek and May Creek, which receive stormwater from portions of the Planned Action Study Area. No wetlands are mapped anywhere in the Planned Action Study Area, or in the vicinity of Johns Creek, Honey Creek or May Creek downstream of the study area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). Honey Creek (also called Honey Dew Creek) originates within the Renton city limits just north-east of the Planned Action Study Area, near the junction of NE Sunset Boulevard and Redmond Place NE. The creek flows west-northwest approximately 1.0 mile to its confluence with May Creek, which then flows another 1.8 miles to its mouth at Lake Washington. The City has classified the upper 0.5 mile of Honey Creek as a Class 3 stream, and the lower 0.5 mile as a Class 2 stream. May Creek is also a Class 2 stream for the first 0.25 mile below the confluence, and below that point is a Class 1 stream. All of these stream classes signify a perennial stream; Class 1 and 2 streams are also salmonid-bearing. Johns Creek is not classified as salmonid-bearing, but Tabor et al. (2006) report that approximately the lowermost 800 feet of the stream, which are at grade with Lake Washington, are used by juvenile Chinook salmon that enter the stream from Lake Washington. Four anadromous salmonid species are found in these streams. As noted, Johns Creek is used by juvenile Chinook salmon. May Creek, from Lake Washington to above Honey Creek, provides migration, spawning, and rearing habitat for Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha, O. kisutch, and O. nerka). From Lake Washington to above Honey Creek, it provides migration habitat for steelhead (O. mykiss). Additionally, the lower 0.32 mile of Honey Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for coho salmon (StreamNet 2010; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2010b). No other sensitive aquatic species have been identified within the analysis area, but it is likely that these waters also contain many common aquatic species such as three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), freshwater sculpins (Cottus
City of Renton
Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4-3 April 2011
ICF 593.10
sp.), nonnative fishes in the sunfish family (Centrarchidae), and long-toed salamanders (Ambystoma macrodactylum).
Section 4.4.1.1, Alternative 1: No Action, Planned Action Study Area, page 4.4-2, amend the first
and second paragraphs as follows: Redevelopment actions would be required to comply, during construction, with City regulations requiring temporary erosion and sedimentation controls to prevent water quality impacts from work site stormwater runoff. Following construction, projects in the May and Honey creek watersheds would be required to comply with City regulations requiring all stormwater detention and treatment to be consistent with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design
Manual (King County 2009). With this compliance, the projects would match the forested discharge duration for the discharge rates between 50% of the 2-year peak flow through the 50-year peak flow and match the 2-year and 10-year peak discharge assuming forested site conditions. Lower Johns Creek is at grade with Lake Washington. Stormwater originating from the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and from other portions of the Planned Action Study Area within the Johns Creek basin would be conveyed to these waters. Johns Creek west of I-405 is classified as a major receiving water body which does not require flow-duration control. The basis for this determination is in the report, Enhanced Transportation Project
Delivery through Watershed Characterization, produced by the Washington State Department of Transportation Urban Corridors Office in collaboration with the Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Muckleshoot Tribe (Gersib et al. 2004). Therefore, the relevant stormwater requirements for flow control within the Johns Creek basin are to maintain the capacity of the existing storm drainage system by matching peak flows from the existing land coverage and to construct flow-control best management practices (BMPs), where feasible. Projects in the Planned Action Study Area would be required to comply with existing stormwater regulations that require “enhanced basic water quality treatment” or “basic water quality treatment,” if single family, per the stormwater code. Compliance with these regulations would produce a decline in the area of untreated pollutant-generating impervious surface, resulting in beneficial effects on water quality. These protections are sufficient to ensure that redevelopment actions under Alternative 1 would not cause adverse impacts on fish and their habitat in the Planned Action Study Area or in waters receiving runoff from the Planned Action Study Area.
Section 4.4.1.1, Alternative 1: No Action, Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, pages
4.4-2 and 4.4-3, amend second paragraph of the subsection as follows: Under Alternative 1, there would be no change in the total area of untreated pollutant-generating surfaces, and the estimated change in effective impervious area would result in an increase of approximately 33% over existing conditions. This represents a functional impairment relative to existing conditions. However, because all runoff from the subarea is conveyed to the City stormwater system, and would be subject to the same regulations described above for the Planned Action Study Area, the runoff increases would have no little potential to impact on aquatic habitat or sensitive fish species.
Section 4.4.1.2, Alternative 2, Planned Action Study Area, page 4.4-3, amend third paragraph of
the subsection as follows:
City of Renton
Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4-4 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Redevelopment actions would be required to comply, during construction, with City regulations requiring temporary erosion and sedimentation controls to prevent water quality impacts from work site stormwater runoff. Following construction, projects in the May and Honey creek watersheds would be required to comply with City regulations requiring all stormwater detention and treatment to be consistent with the 2009 King County stormwater manual. With this compliance, the projects would match the forested discharge duration for the discharge rates between 50% of the 2-year peak flow through the 50-year peak flow and match the 2-year and 10-year peak discharge assuming forested site conditions. As detailed in the Alternative 1 analysis, Johns Creek is a flow-control-exempt water body. Within the Johns Creek basin, redevelopment actions must maintain the capacity of the existing storm drainage system by matching peak flows from the existing land coverage and constructing flow control BMPs where feasible. Construction in the Johns Creek basin would be consistent with the 2009 King County
Surface Water Design Manual (King County 2009).
Section 4.4.1.2, Alternative 2, Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, page 4.4-4,
amend second paragraph of subsection as follows: All runoff from the subarea is conveyed to the City stormwater systemJohns Creek and is subject to existing regulation as described above. All but 0.13 acre of the pollutant-generating impervious surfaces in the subarea would be treated, representing a substantial improvement compared to existing conditions, under which the subarea has 1.88 acres of untreated pollutant-generating impervious surfaces. Thus, there would be no minimal impact on aquatic habitat or sensitive fish species.
Section 4.4.1.3, Alternative 3, Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, page 4.4-5,
second paragraph of subsection as follows: As under Alternative 2, runoff from the subarea is conveyed to the City stormwater systemJohns Creek and is subject to existing regulation. All but 0.6 acre of pollutant-generating impervious surfaces in the subarea would be treated, representing a reduction of 1.83 acres in untreated pollutant-generating impervious surfaces. Thus, there would be no a beneficial impact on aquatic habitat or and sensitive fish species, but the impact would be small because the subarea represents a very small fraction of the Johns Creek watershed.
4.4.5 Energy No clarifications or corrections are included.
4.4.6 Noise No clarifications or corrections are included.
4.4.7 Environmental Health In response to comments by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Chapter 5, letter 7) recommending that Dangerous Waste regulations be specifically addressed in Draft EIS Section 4.7, the following clarification is made.
Section 4.7.2.1, Planned Action Study Area, Construction Mitigation Measures, amend bullet 2 as
follows:
City of Renton
Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4-5 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Contractors will be required to implement a contingency plan to identify, segregate, and dispose of hazardous waste in full accordance with the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) (WAC 173-340) and the Dangerous Waste (WAC 173-303) regulations
4.4.8 Land Use
.
No clarifications or corrections are included.
4.4.9 Socioeconomics No clarifications or corrections are included.
4.4.10 Housing No clarifications or corrections are included.
4.4.11 Environmental Justice No clarifications or corrections are included.
4.4.12 Aesthetics No clarifications or corrections are included.
4.4.13 Historic/Cultural Based on consultant review, the following clarifications and corrections are made regarding state responsibilities.
Section 3.13, page 3.13-6, amend the last two paragraphs of the subsection, regarding the
discussion of the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, as follows: Under SEPA, the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) is the specified agency with the technical expertise to consider the effects of a proposed action on cultural resources and to provide formal recommendations to local governments and other state agencies for appropriate treatments or actions. DAHP does not regulate the treatment of cultural resources found to be significant. A local governing authority may choose to uphold the DAHP recommendations and may require mitigation of adverse effects on significant cultural resources. For the purposes of this analysis, tThe degree to which the alternatives adversely affect districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP is the primary criterion for determining significant impacts under SEPA. Secondary criteria include whether an alternative has the potential to affect districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects listed in or eligible for listing in the Washington Heritage Register (WHR), the state equivalent of the NRHP.
City of Renton
Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4-6 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Section 3.13, page 3.13-6, add a discussion of other archaeological resource laws, as follows:
Other Archaeological Resource Laws Other state laws that govern the protection of archaeological resources include the following:
RCW 27.44, Indian Graves and Records, provides protection for Native American graves and burial grounds, encourages voluntary reporting of said sites when they are discovered, and mandates a penalty for disturbance or desecration of such sites.
RCW 27.53, Archaeological Sites and Resources, governs the protection and preservation of archaeological sites and resources and establishes DAHP as the administering agency for these regulations.
RCW 36.70A.020 includes a goal to “Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures that have historical, cultural, and archaeological significance.” Cities planning under the Washington State Growth Management Act must consider and incorporate this historic preservation goal.
RCW 68.60, Abandoned and Historic Cemeteries and Historic Graves, provides for the protection and preservation of abandoned and historic cemeteries and historic graves. In response to comments made by the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (Chapter 5, Letter 2), the following clarification is made to mitigation measures.
Section 4.13.2, mitigation measures for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea,
amend paragraph 2, page 4.13-8 as follows: If human skeletal remains are discovered, the King County Sheriff and DAHP should be notified immediately. If or if during excavation archaeological materials are uncovered during excavation, the proponent will immediately stop work and notify the City, DAHP, and affected Indian tribes, agencies as outlined in the Unanticipated Discovery Plan provided in Draft EIS Appendix J and as amended by Final EIS Chapter 4. If the project would disturb an archaeological resource, the City will impose any and all measures to avoid or substantially lessen the impact. If avoidance of the archaeological resource is not possible, an appropriate research design must be developed and implemented with full data recovery of the archaeological resource prior to the development project. The avoidance of archaeological resources through selection of project alternatives and changes in design of project features in the specific area of the affected resource(s) would eliminate the need for measuring or mitigating impacts.
4.4.14 Transportation In response to comments by King County Metro (Chapter 5, Letter 1), the following clarifications about transit routes are made.
Section 3.14.1.1, Planned Action Study Area, page 3.14-3, amend Transit Section as follows: Four Five King County Metro bus routes serve the Planned Action Study Area. King County Metro provides fixed-route transit service connecting the study area to downtown Renton, Seattle and Bellevue. Table 3.14-2 outlines these routes.
City of Renton
Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4-7 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Table 3.14-2. King County Metro Transit Service Route # Route Name Operation Days Operation Times Headwaya 105 Renton Highlands–Downtown Renton Weekday Saturday Sunday 4:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 6:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 7:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 30 minutes 30 minutes 1 hour 111 Downtown Seattle–Lake Kathleen Weekday 5:20 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 15 minutes 15 minutes 240 Bellevue–Renton Transit Center Weekday Saturday Sunday 5:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. 7:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. 30 minutes 30 minutes 1 hour 908 Renton Highlands–Downtown Renton Weekday Saturday 7:20 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 7:50 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. 1 hour 1 hour 909 Renton Highlands–Downtown Renton Weekday Saturday 5:45 a.m. to 7:15 p.m. 6:15 a.m. to 6:45 p.m. 1 hour 1 hour Source: King County 2010. a Headway is defined at the time between successive busses as they pass a common point on the roadway. Metro Route 105 is a local route that travels between downtown Renton and Renton Highlands, terminating at Harrington Avenue NE and NE 16th Street. From the north, the route travels along NE 12th Street and NE 10th Street through the study area before heading south on Union Avenue NE to NE 4th Street and downtown Renton. Metro Route 111 provides weekday directional peak-period service between downtown Seattle and the Renton Highlands. In the morning, the route travels through the study area along NE 10th Street, NE Sunset Boulevard, and Kirkland Avenue NE before heading west along NE 16th Street towards Interstate 405 and its final destination in downtown Seattle. In the afternoon, reverse peak-period service comes from Seattle and travels through the study area towards Renton Highlands. Metro Route 240 provides daily service between the Renton Transit Center and the community of Clyde Hill (Bellevue). It is the primary transit route through the study area and immediately serves the Potential Sunset Terrance Redevelopment Subarea. Within the study area, the route travels along NE Sunset Boulevard from NE Park Drive to Duvall Avenue NE. At Duvall Avenue NE, the route turns northbound and travels through the Newcastle Transit Center to Bellevue. Metro Routes 908 and 909 are is part of King County Metro’s Dial-a-Ride-Transit (DART) program. The route Route 909 provides weekday and Saturday service between Kennydale and downtown Renton, and passes through the study area along Kirkland Avenue NE, NE Sunset Boulevard, and Harrington Avenue NE. Route 908 also provides service on weekdays and Saturdays, but travels between Maplewood and downtown Renton. This route serves Renton District Court and Renton Technical College, and passes through the study area along Edmonds Avenue NE.
4.4.15 Parks and Recreation Page 4.15-1, Impacts, fourth paragraph, amend as follows (staff corrections): For recreation facilities LOS, two measures were calculated: 1) with school facilities and 2) without school facilities. To calculate recreation facilities LOS deficiencies and surplus, the
City of Renton
Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4-8 April 2011
ICF 593.10
existing study area population was compared to the City’s LOS standards for each facility type (refer to Table 3.15-3 for facility LOS). Table 4.15-2 summarizes the existing and future LOS for recreation facilities (fields, courts, and trails) within the Planned Action Study Area. Figure 4.15-1 shows the service areas of the park facilities within the Planned Action Study Area. Refer to Appendix G for the park and recreation LOS calculations. Ballfield and sport court LOS standards are applied citywide; thus, a lack of such facilities within the Planned Action Study Area or the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea does not indicate an LOS deficiency. Page 4.15-5, Alternative 1: No Action, Planned Action Study Area, Operation, Third Paragraph, revise as follows (staff corrections): As shown in Table 14.5-2, LOS results for future No Action conditions (not including school recreation facilities) indicate that there would be a deficiency in baseball/softball fields, football/soccer fields, and walking/hiking trails within the Planned Action Study Area. If school facilities were considered as a joint use with park facilities, as discussed in Alternatives 2 and 3, the City’s current adopted standards for fields and courts would be met, but a deficiency would remain for walking/hiking trails. Ballfield and sport court LOS standards are applied citywide; thus, a lack of such facilities within the Planned Action Study Area or the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea does not indicate an LOS deficiency. Page 4.15-6, Alternative 2, Planned Action Study Area, Second Paragraph, revise as follows (staff corrections): With the future increase in population (an increase of 3,830 from existing conditions) in the Planned Action Study Area for Alternative 2, an increase in demand for park and recreation facilities is anticipated. Although about 0.89 acre of park 38,500 square feet of community service space are added to the Planned Action Study Area under Alternative 2 (in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea), there would be a deficiency in both neighborhood and community park land under future conditions and the population would continue to be underserved, as shown in Table 4.15-1. Without the addition of new recreation facilities, there would also be a deficiency of fields, courts, and trails within the study area, as shown in Table 4.15-2. Ballfield and sport court LOS standards are applied citywide; thus, a lack of such facilities within the Planned Action Study Area or the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea does not indicate an LOS deficiency. Beyond park acres, ballfields, courts, and trails, there may also be a need for specialized facilities such as gyms, running areas, and meeting rooms. This would be further determined by City parks and recreation plans and site programming. Page 4.15-7, Alternative 3, Planned Action Study Area, Second Paragraph, revise as follows (staff corrections); Under Alternative 3, population in the Planned Action Study Area increases by 5,789 people from existing conditions. With this increase, the demand for parks and recreation facilities would increase more than under Alternative 2. Without additional park acreage, there would be a deficiency in neighborhood and community park acreage in the Planned Action Study Area (Table 4.15-1) and a deficiency in fields, courts, and trails (Table 4.15-2). Ballfield and sport court LOS standards are applied citywide; thus, a lack of such facilities within the Planned Action Study Area or the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea does not indicate an LOS deficiency.
City of Renton
Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4-9 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Similar to Alternative 2, there may also be a need for specialized facilities such as gyms, running areas, and meeting rooms. This would be further determined by City parks and recreation plans and site programming. Page 4.15-9, Indirect Impacts, Second Paragraph revise as follows (staff corrections): Facility deficiencies in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would also likely lead to spillover demand for active playfields for team sports in other parts of Renton as well as in surrounding communities. However, the City treats ballfield capacity as a citywide service and would consider citywide demand.
4.4.16 Public Services Page 4.16-7, Alternative 2, Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, Social Services, First Paragraph, amend as follows (staff corrections): The Sunset Terrace redevelopment would displace the existing on-site community meeting space that is currently used for on-site social service programs. However, the space would be replaced onsite or nearby with a larger and more modern facility, and with appropriate phasing of development, disruption to on-site social service programs could be minimized or avoided. Page 4.16-11, Alternative 3, Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, Social Services, First Paragraph, amend as follows (staff corrections): Similar to Alternative 2, redevelopment of this subarea would displace the existing on-site community meeting space that is currently used for on-site social service programs. However, the space would be replaced onsite or nearby with a larger and more modern facility, and with appropriate phasing of development, disruption to on-site social service programs could be minimized or avoided.
4.4.17 Utilities Page 4.17-3, Alternative 2, Planned Action Study Area, Wastewater, amend as follows (staff corrections): Under Alternative 2, the increase in wastewater load for the Planned Action Study Area is 0.70 .42 million gallons per day (115119% of existing load). Similarly, as discussed under Alternative 1, no impacts are expected in the wastewater interceptors that provide conveyance of wastewater from the Planned Action Study Area. However, the increased wastewater load with the growth planned under Alternative 2 could increase current surcharging of the local sewers within the study area. Page 4.17-4, Alternative 2, Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, Wastewater, amend as follows (staff corrections): The increase in wastewater load in this subarea, under Alternative 2, would be 0.40 07 million gallons per day (311% of existing load). Similar to the Planned Action Study Area evaluation of wastewater conveyance capacity for Alternative 2, no impacts on the interceptors that provide conveyance from the subarea are expected, but the increased wastewater load could impact local sewers within the subarea and increase current surcharging of the local sewers within the subarea.
City of Renton
Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4-10 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Page 4.17-5, Alternative 3, Planned Action Study Area, Wastewater, amend as follows (staff correction): Under Alternative 3, the increase in wastewater load for the Planned Action Study Area is 0.57 63 million gallons per day (193181% of existing load). This increase in wastewater load is not expected to affect the wastewater interceptors that provide conveyance of wastewater from the Planned Action Study Area. Similar to the discussion under Alternatives 1 and 2, the increased wastewater load with the growth planned for Alternative 3 could increase current surcharging of the local sewers within the Planned Action Study Area.
4.4.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources No clarifications or corrections are included.
4.4.19 Local Short-Term Uses of Environment and Long-Term
Productivity No clarifications or corrections are included.
4.5 Draft EIS Chapter 5 No clarifications or corrections are included.
4.6 Draft EIS Chapter 6 No clarifications or corrections are included.
4.7 Draft EIS Chapter 7 No clarifications or corrections are included.
4.8 Draft EIS Chapter 8 In response to comments made by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division, Chapter 5, Letter 12 the following clarifications and corrections are made:
Section 8.1.5, add the following reference:
Tabor, R. A., H. A. Gearns, C. M. McCoy III, and S. Camacho. 2006. Nearshore habitat use by
juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin. Lacey, WA: U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Section 8.1.23, add the following reference:
City of Renton
Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4-11 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Gersib, R., B. Haddaway, T. Hilliard, E. Molash, J. Park, A. Perez, R. Schanz, and V. Stone. 2004.
Enhancing Transportation Project Delivery through Watershed Characterization, I-405 Case
Study. Seattle, WA: WSDOT Urban Corridors Office.
4.9 Draft EIS Appendices Based on consultant review, the following clarifications and corrections are made to Appendix J regarding state responsibilities.
Appendix J, page 1-7, amend the last two paragraphs of the subsection, regarding the discussion of
the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, as follows: Under SEPA, the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) is the specified agency with the technical expertise to consider the effects of a proposed action on cultural resources and to provide formal recommendations to local governments and other state agencies for appropriate treatments or actions. DAHP does not regulate the treatment of cultural resources found to be significant. A local governing authority may choose to uphold the DAHP recommendations and may require mitigation of adverse effects on significant cultural resources. For the purposes of this analysis, tThe degree to which the alternatives adversely affect districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP is the primary criterion for determining significant impacts under SEPA. Secondary criteria include whether an alternative has the potential to affect districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects listed in or eligible for listing in the Washington Heritage Register (WHR), the state equivalent of the NRHP.
Appendix J, page 1-7, add a discussion of other archaeological resource laws, as follows:
Other Archaeological Resource Laws Other state laws that govern the protection of archaeological resources include:
RCW 27.44, Indian Graves and Records, provides protection for Native American graves and burial grounds, encourages voluntary reporting of said sites when they are discovered, and mandates a penalty for disturbance or desecration of such sites.
RCW 27.53, Archaeological Sites and Resources, governs the protection and preservation of archaeological sites and resources and establishes DAHP as the administering agency for these regulations.
RCW 36.70A.020 includes a goal to “Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures that have historical, cultural, and archaeological significance.” Cities planning under the Washington State Growth Management Act must consider and incorporate this historic preservation goal.
RCW 68.60, Abandoned and Historic Cemeteries and Historic Graves, provides for the protection and preservation of abandoned and historic cemeteries and historic graves. In response to comments made by Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (Chapter 5, Letter 2), the following clarifications are made to mitigation measures.
City of Renton
Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4-12 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Appendix J, amend recommendations, page 7-1 regarding inadvertent discovery procedures as
follows: If human skeletal remains are discovered, the King County Sheriff and DAHP should be notified immediately. If or if during excavation archaeological materials are uncovered during excavation, the proponent shall immediately stop work and notify the City, DAHP, and affected Indian tribes, agencies as outlined in the Unanticipated Discovery Plan provided in Appendix C and as amended by Final EIS Chapter 4.
Appendix J, amend inadvertent discovery procedures C and D as follows: C. If skeletal remains are discovered, the City of Renton will immediately call the King County Sheriff’s office, the King County Coroner, and a cultural resource specialist or consultant qualified to identify human skeletal remains. The county coroner will determine if the remains are forensic or non-forensic (whether related to a criminal investigation). The remains should be protected in place until this has been determined.The Sheriff’s office may arrange for a representative of the county coroner’s office to examine the discovery. The remains should be protected in place until the cultural resource specialist has examined the find. D. If the human skeletal remains are determined to be non-forensic, the King County Coroner will notify DAHP, who will take jurisdiction over the remains. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Native American or Non-Native American. DAHP will handle all consultation with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe as to the treatment of the remains.If the human skeletal remains are determined to be Native American, the City of Renton will notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribes.
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5-1 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Chapter 5
Responses to Comments
5.1 Overview This chapter of the Final EIS contains responses to in-person and written comments on the Draft EIS provided during the comment period. The comment period for the Draft EIS extended from December 17, 2010, through January 31, 2011.
5.2 Public Comments Twelve public comment letters, as well as in-person comments at the Renton Planning Commission’s January 5, 2011, meeting, were received during the comment period. These letters and public hearing minutes are listed in Table 5-1. Table 5-2 provides a response to the comments from each letter.
Table 5-1. Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft EIS Comment Letters Letter Number Date of Comment Author: Resident, Property Owner, or Agency Name 1 December 29, 2010 King County Metro Transit, Gary Kriedt 2 December 30, 2010 Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Gretchen Kaehler 3 January 4, 2011 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region X, PHRS- Facilities Management, Ryan Mielcarek 4 January 5, 2011 Renton Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes 5 January 5, 2011 Lori McFarland 6 January 5, 2011 Housing Development Consortium- King County, Karen Williams 7 January 25, 2011 Washington State Department of Ecology, Alice Kelly 8 January 27, 2011 Linda Perrine 9 January 27, 2011 U.S. Department of the Interior, Allison O’Brien 10 January 30, 2011 Kathleen Ossenkop 11 January 31, 2011 Myrne Larsen 12 January 31, 2011 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division, Karen Walter 13 January 31, 2011 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Christine B. Reichgott
5.3 Responses to Comments The responses listed in Table 5-2 are numbered to correspond to the numbers shown in the left margin of the comment letters and public hearing minutes that follow after Table 5-2. Comments that state an opinion or preference are acknowledged with a response that indicates that the comment is noted; these comments will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers as part of the Final EIS. Comments that ask questions, request clarifications, propose corrections, or are
City of Renton
Chapter 5. Responses to Comments
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5-2 April 2011
ICF 593.10
related to the Draft EIS are provided a response that explains the approach, offers corrections, or provides other appropriate information.
Table 5-2. Responses to Comments Comment Number Response Letter 1: Gary Kriedt, King County Metro Transit 1-1 Transit Service: Draft EIS Section 3.14 describes current transit service, but does not address Route 908 referenced in the comment. A description of Route 908 has been added to the Final EIS as a clarification/correction. Please see Final EIS Chapter 4. 1-2 Bus Stop Improvement Request: Draft EIS Section 4.14 indicates under Alternatives 2 and 3 that “[a]ll bus stops within the Planned Action Study Area will be upgraded to meet ADA accessibility requirements.” This feature is part of the Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS as well. Letter 2: Gretchen Kaehler, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 2-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Remains—Authorities to Contact: An edit has been made to the cultural resources report to clarify that both local law enforcement and2-2 the King County Coroner must be notified if remains are found.
Non-Forensic Remains—DAHP Jurisdiction: An edit has been made to the cultural resources report to clarify that DHAP will take jurisdiction over non-forensic remains. Letter 3: Ryan Mielcarek, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Region X, PHRS- Facilities Management 3-1 Concerning the Opening of Windows: Based on a review of the referenced HUD Noise Guidebook, the Final EIS noise analysis (Section 3.6) provides some follow-up analysis of standard construction materials that supports a performance standard to reduce interior noise levels to achieve the HUD standard of 45 dBA. Final EIS Appendix F documents the criteria are met with regard to “resident choice” as referenced in the comment. 3-2 Concerning the Space Between Sunset Road and the Multifamily Structures: Building layouts and location of exterior gathering spaces in relation to NE Sunset Boulevard were considered in the development of the Preferred Alternative. The building setbacks are increased along NE Sunset Boulevard compared to the Draft EIS concepts, and buildings ring a central park protecting it from traffic noise emanating from NE Sunset Boulevard. The plaza near the library is placed to the north of the building rather than along the state route. See Final EIS Chapter 2 for a description of the Preferred Alternative. 3-3 Other Thoughts: The suggestion for nonmotorized connections throughout the Sunset Terrace streetscape was considered in the development of the Preferred Alternative; see Final EIS Chapter 2. The topography and space between buildings 9 and 10 allow for a mid-block connection.
City of Renton
Chapter 5. Responses to Comments
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5-3 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Comment Number Response Letter 4: Renton Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes 4-1 Linda Perinne, Property Owner, Jobs Clarification and Stormwater Improvements: The Draft EIS identifies new permanent jobs, not relating to the construction or development of the project. Regarding stormwater, when new buildings are built, the developer needs to comply with the necessary improvements. 4-2 Howard McComber, Highlands Community Association President, Greenway Drainage and
Additional Right-of-Way, Avoid Eminent Domain: Draft EIS Alternatives 2 and 3 include rain gardens or swales that are in the right-of-way, requiring an 8-foot planting strip, where a low impact development (LID) style stormwater vault can be installed. In many cases, the rights-of-way are very large. Some areas along NE Sunset Blvd could need additional right-of-way; however, fair-market value will be negotiated with the property owner if right-of-way is needed. The Preferred Alternative has a reduced need for right-of-way east of NE 10th Street, because the right-of-way width generally accommodates the Complete Street improvements; it should be noted that some commercial parking areas extend into the right-of-way. West of NE 10th Street, there would be a need for some acquisition, principally from the Sunset Terrace site to accommodate the Complete Streets concept. 4-3 Sandel DeMastus, Highlands Community Association Vice President, Ensure Senior and Disabled
are Taken Care Of: The Draft EIS alternatives and the Preferred Alternative include new senior housing and a PACE facility that address elder day health. 4-4 Angie Pretty, Housing Affordability and School District Impacts: The City has been coordinating with the Renton School District throughout this process. The Draft EIS evaluates school impacts in Sections 3.16 and 4.16. The Final EIS evaluates school impacts of the Preferred Alternative in Section 3.16. 4-5 Kathleen Ossenkop, Property Owner, Concern Regarding Addition of 500 Units of Housing and
Impacts on Residents: The Draft EIS identifies potential impacts of additional jobs and housing in the Planned Action Study Area and the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and proposes mitigation measures to reduce identified impacts. The Final EIS analyzes these potential impacts with respect to the Preferred Alternative. 4-6 Karen Williams, Housing Development Consortium of King County, Appreciate Plan, Ensure
Gentrification Does not Remove Private Affordable Housing: The comments are noted and are being considered by city decision makers. Also see responses to specific comments from Letter 6. 4-7 Lori McFarland, Property Owner, Supports Transportation Improvements, Particularly
Alternative 3: The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the Final EIS incorporates many elements of Alternative 3. Please see Final EIS Chapter 2. 4-8 Jim Houghton, Property Owner, Developing a Condominium for Seniors, Renton Should Be Part
of ARCH: A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) generally serves King County and east King County. The City is not in the service area of ARCH (Sullivan pers. comm.). The City does participate in the King County Consortium; it operates its own Housing Opportunity Fund and offers multifamily tax incentives (please see Draft EIS Section 3.10.2, Regulatory Context).
City of Renton
Chapter 5. Responses to Comments
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5-4 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Comment Number Response Letter 5: Lori McFarland 5-1 Preference for Alternative 3 and Interconnection of Signals on NE Sunset Boulevard: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the Final EIS incorporates many elements of Alternative 3. Please see Final EIS Chapter 2. 5-2 In Favor of Incentives for Redevelopment to Prevent Continued Decay: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. Draft EIS Alternatives 2 and 3 assume public investment as an incentive to private redevelopment, and this concept has been carried forward in the Preferred Alternative. Please see Final EIS Chapter 2. 5-3 Create Pedestrian Improvements that are Accessible per ADAAG: Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative include pedestrian improvements and are intended to meet accessibility guidelines. Please see Final EIS Chapter 2. 5-4 Favor BAT Lanes: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. The Preferred Alternative analyzed in the Final EIS incorporates many elements of Alternative 3. Please see Final EIS Chapter 2. 5-5 Enjoy Diversity in Renton: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. Letter 6: Karen Williams, Housing Development Consortium 6-1 Gentrification and Non-RHA Affordable Housing: The Draft EIS (Section 4.10.2.1) proposes mitigation measures to address potential loss of affordable housing, including funding programs and a local preference for rental assistance. The same measures apply to the Preferred Alternative. 6-2 Gather Information on Private Market Housing: The City may consider collecting this information when it next updates its Housing Element per the Growth Management Act (the current deadline is December 2014). 6-3 Engage Non-Profit Housing Providers: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. 6-4 Apply Best Practices in Community Redevelopment Experiences: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. The City code includes zoning or developer incentives. 6-5 Amend Existing Density Incentives—Lesser Acreage Minimum and Scaled Incentives: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. In 2007, the City adopted revised zoning for the Planned Action Study Area substantively amending density and bonuses. At this early stage of implementation and redevelopment, the City could monitor development and adapt regulations as needed. The proposed Planned Action Ordinance includes an evaluation in 5 years from the date of adoption, and housing affordability could be reviewed at that time. Alternatively, the City could review housing affordability at the time of its next housing element update as part of the Comprehensive Plan review cycle, next scheduled in 2014 at the time of this writing. Letter 7: Alice Kelly, Washington State Department of Ecology 7-1 Contaminated Site Records: Draft EIS Section 3.7 discloses available agency records. As a result of the comment, it is recommended that Dangerous Waste regulations be specifically addressed in Draft EIS Section 4.7 mitigation measures (4.7.2.1).
Contractors will be required to implement a contingency plan to identify, segregate, and dispose of hazardous waste in full accordance with the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) (WAC 173-340) and the Dangerous Waste (WAC 173-303) regulations.
City of Renton
Chapter 5. Responses to Comments
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5-5 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Comment Number Response Letter 8: Linda Perrine 8-1 Concern over Scale and Type of Buildings on Edmonds-Glenwood Site: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. Draft EIS Alternatives 1 and 2 propose townhomes facing Glenwood Avenue NE to better match the scale of attached dwellings on Glenwood Avenue NE and propose multifamily dwellings facing Edmonds Avenue NE where larger scale buildings are found. Alternative 3 proposes a single multifamily building. The Preferred Alternative includes the combined townhome/flat concept of Draft EIS Alternatives 1 and 2, providing a development pattern that is more consistent with the neighborhood. 8-2 Zoning Allows Building Bonuses Unreasonable to the Neighborhood: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. Please note that the City is implementing zoning that was approved in 2007 after obtaining input from a task force and residents (see Draft EIS page 2-10). Also it should be noted that the alternatives for the Edmonds-Glenwood site do not achieve the full maximums allowed by zoning:
The R-14 zone allows a maximum of 14 to 18 dwelling units per acre with opportunities to increase to 30 dwelling units per acre for public housing. However, Draft EIS Alternatives 1 and 2 and the Preferred Alternative propose 8 townhouse units on 0.65 acre along Glenwood Avenue NE, representing about 12 dwelling units per acre.
Similarly, the property to contain 82 flats along Edmonds Avenue NE is zoned Center Village. While this zone allows up to 80 dwelling units per acre, development under Draft EIS Alternatives 1 and 2 and the Preferred Alternative would achieve 48 dwelling units per acre. 8-3 Glenwood Is One-Lane Wide—Not Capable of Handling High Density: The Draft EIS reviews city level of service (LOS) standards in Sections 3.14 and 4.14. City LOS standards would be met under all Draft EIS alternatives with little mitigation. The Preferred Alternative has similar results as shown in Final EIS Section 3.14. Additionally, there are two access points for the combined townhome/flat concept: Edmonds Avenue NE for the primary access to the flats and Glenwood Avenue NE for primary access by townhome residents. Recognizing that dampening traffic is RHA’s preference as well as the commenter’s, the Preferred Alternative would include site design measures to limit pass-through travel (e.g., traffic calming, parking and access design) 8-4 Inadequate Parking for Current Residents—Parking Will Overflow: The Edmonds-Glenwood proposal will include parking that meets City code standards. 8-5 Kids Play in Street—Concern about Traffic: Please see responses to comment 8-3. Also note that the Preferred Alternative includes a larger park area for the whole neighborhood and proposes pedestrian paths and improvements on surrounding streets. Please see Final EIS Chapter 2.
City of Renton
Chapter 5. Responses to Comments
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5-6 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Comment Number Response 8-6 Buildings Will Block Sun and Create Shade: As noted in Section 4.12 of the Draft EIS for Alternatives 1 and 2 that propose the development along Edmonds-Glenwood, “…RHA housing facilities…would have the potential to increase shading of adjacent properties to the north, though the effect would be minor due to similarity in height. Shading impacts could be minimized through the application of buffers or upper-story setbacks adjacent to existing development.” City design guidelines, at Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-100.E, require transitional design standards as follows: At least one of the following design elements shall be used to promote a transition to surrounding uses: 1. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and/or so that sunlight reaches adjacent and/or abutting yards; or 2. Building proportions, including step-backs on upper levels in accordance with the surrounding planned and existing land use forms; or 3. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or 4. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. 8-7 Parking Area Will Have 24-Hour Light: City lighting standards require that lights not trespass on other properties through the use of shielding and other techniques. (See RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On-Site.) 8-8 High Density Will Discourage New Renters: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. Please see responses to comments 8-2 regarding density. Please also note the planned public investment in terms of infrastructure, mixed-income housing, and services is intended to create a more vital attractive area for housing and jobs. 8-9 Increased Pedestrian Traffic by Strangers: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. Note that pedestrian traffic will be directed towards improved sidewalks and paths in the neighborhood. Well-designed development, according to Book Schneider (2010), means more visibility and ownership of common areas. Encouraging tenants to get to know neighbors could be appropriate, as well. 8-10 Tenant Turnover: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. RHA-managed properties tend to have very little turnover. For all of the 38 families that moved into Sunset Terrace prior to January 1, 2010, and vacated between 2005 and 2010, the average tenancy is approximately 5.7 years. For the 1,089 RHA tenants across all programs that moved in since 1999 and moved out between 2005 and 2010, the average tenancy is 3.9 years (Gropper pers. comm.) 8-11 Increased Noise: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. It appears that the Edmonds-Glenwood site proposes surface parking south of the property owner’s side yard, and is not directly behind the property owner’s duplex unlike the existing development that the commenter references. Structural orientation and the use of living landscape will soften noise. Residents will be held to customary standard of not disturbing others. (Gropper pers. comm.) 8-12 Garbage Thrown Over Fence: RHA’s existing communities are evidence of its attention to well-managed properties with clean appearance. Tossing trash is a violation of the lease that will result in firm enforcement up to and including eviction. (Gropper pers. comm.)
City of Renton
Chapter 5. Responses to Comments
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5-7 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Comment Number Response 8-13 Construction Activity Affecting Ability to Rent: The Draft EIS identifies a number of construction mitigation measures regarding traffic, dust, noise, etc. These mitigation measures are summarized in Draft and Final EIS Chapter 1 (Table 1-2). These will also apply to the Preferred Alternative. 8-14 What Will Final Location of Parking Be? The Preferred Alternative proposes that the Edmonds-Glenwood site be designed more like Alternative 1 or 2 to include parking behind buildings whether from Glenwood Avenue NE or Edmonds Avenue NE. Alternative 3 showed a design with parking facing Glenwood Avenue NE and that is not part of the Preferred Alternative. Please see Final EIS Chapter 2. 8-15 Want to Submit Additional Comments in the Future/Concerned about Planned Action Limiting
Future Comments: This EIS discloses environmental impacts of planned future public investment and public and private redevelopment, and the City has provided notice through scoping, the Draft EIS comment period, and public hearings. In order to qualify as a Planned Action under SEPA future proposals will be required to be consistent with EIS assumptions and mitigation measures. The Planned Action Ordinance limits the SEPA review process and amount of future environmental review required, but does not preclude future notice of projects. Based on the Renton Municipal Code, if a land use or construction permit requires public notice, public notice will be issued. RHA proposals for Sunset Terrace redevelopment are reviewed in this EIS, and further NEPA analysis for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would not be required. Regarding other future RHA proposals, the Planned Action does not apply to proposals that are subject to NEPA; activities that meet NEPA review thresholds and must obtain federal permits or funding may require additional NEPA environmental review. However, agencies may also use this EIS to the extent appropriate to address potential impacts of NEPA projects. Letter 9: Allison O’Brien, U.S. Department of Interior 9-1 No Comment: We appreciate the Department’s interest in the proposals. Letter 10: Kathleen Ossenkop 10-1 Sunset Area Has Seen Many Businesses in Last 15 Years: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. 10-2 Fire Station and Noise: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. The fire station provides fire suppression and emergency medical services to benefit the neighborhood use. While the present station was recently built north of NE 12th Street, it is not a new use to the neighborhood and for decades was located south of NE Sunset Boulevard in the Planned Action Study Area. 10-3 Highlands Library Transfer: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. As described in Draft EIS Section 3.16, in early 2010, the City annexed to the King County Library System. The Renton Highlands Branch is located within the Planned Action Study Area at 2902 NE 12th Street. The current facility is approximately 6,592 square feet in size and provides 59 hours of service per week to the community (King County Library System 2010). Further, the Draft EIS discusses that the City and King County Library System propose to relocate the library within the neighborhood and increase its size to 15,000 square feet. 10-4 School Crowding and Busing of Students: Draft EIS Sections 3.16 and 4.16 analyze current and planned education services in terms of growth in the Planned Action Study Area. Renton School District addresses busing services. The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. 10-5 Area Has Revitalized and More Growth Will Affect Neighborhood Livability: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. The increased growth will bring more mixed-income housing and jobs and stimulate spending at area businesses. Future development will be required to meet City parking standards.
City of Renton
Chapter 5. Responses to Comments
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5-8 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Comment Number Response 10-6 No More Low and Modest Income Residences: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. The Sunset Terrace redevelopment would change the area from a public housing development to a mixed-income development including market-rate housing. It will include housing styles that promote ownership (e.g., townhouses). 10-7 Additional Noise and Traffic Due to Adding 479 Units: The Draft EIS reviews the cumulative increase in noise and traffic due to increases in growth at Sunset Terrace and throughout the neighborhood. Current noise levels exceed HUD standards but not Washington State Department of Transportation standards. The EIS identifies some potential increases in noise due to growth, but also identifies mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts. While there are some potential increases in traffic volumes, also described in the EIS, little mitigation is required because NE Sunset Boulevard and most streets have capacity and would meet City LOS standards. Please see Sections 3.6/4.6 and 3.14/4.14 for noise and transportation analyses, respectively. The Preferred Alternative has similar results, as documented in Final EIS Chapter 3. 10-8 Additional Crime: Based on current ratios of police officers per 1,000 population, with additional growth, additional police officers may be needed as described in Draft EIS Section 4.16. Studies regarding low-income housing and crime tend to show a lack of association. For example, Freedman and Owens (2010) cite: “Low-income housing development, and the associated revitalization of neighborhoods, brings with it significant reductions in violent crime that are measurable at the county level.” 10-9 Concern for Lack of Common Language, Increased Density, Needs of Senior Citizens: The Renton School District provides a program titled “English Language Learner Program,” which may see more use over time as the neighborhood grows, as documented in Section 4.16 of the Draft EIS. Regarding density, no further changes to zoning are proposed in the neighborhood. Please note that the City is implementing zoning that was approved in 2007 after obtaining input from a task force and residents (see Draft EIS page 2-10). Regarding needs of senior citizens, the Sunset Terrace redevelopment plans include additional senior housing and a PACE facility for the frail elderly. 10-10 Protect the Neighborhood from Developers: Please note that the City is implementing zoning that was approved in 2007 after obtaining input from a task force and residents (see Draft EIS page 2-10). 10-11 Summary of Concerns: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. Please see responses to comments 10-1 through 10-10.
City of Renton
Chapter 5. Responses to Comments
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5-9 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Comment Number Response Letter 11: Myrne Larsen 11-1 Highlands Library Needs to Be Larger/Have Better Computers: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. Please see responses to comment 10-3. 11-2 Highlands Retail Needs New Layout: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. Based on zoning in place, as commercial areas redevelop the City’s setback and parking location and access requirements would result in better defined layouts. 11-3 Harrington Square Shows Demand for More and Better Housing: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. 11-4 Need Dedicated Senior Housing: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. Regarding needs of senior citizens, all studied alternatives include additional senior housing and a PACE facility for the frail elderly. 11-5 Need Community Facilities for Play: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. Please see Draft EIS Section 4.15 for analysis of parks and recreation needs and additional mitigation. Also please note that the Preferred Alternative proposes to aggregate and expand park facilities north of NE Sunset Boulevard (Final EIS Section 3.15). 11-6 Increase in Mixed Income Units Will Benefit Library and Retail Space: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. 11-7 Enhance Sunset Traffic Corridor: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative propose a Complete Streets concept for NE Sunset Boulevard, with greater strides made with Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative. Letter 12: Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 12-1 Johns Creek and Salmonid Use: Johns Creek issues from a stormwater discharge culvert approximately 800 feet upstream of its mouth at Lake Washington. The stream in that reach is at the grade of Lake Washington and for this reason is not flow control limited. The stream provides rearing habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon, which enter the lower stream from Lake Washington and use it as foraging habitat 1
1 Tabor, R.A. et al. 2006. Nearshore Habitat Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in Lentic Systems of the Lake Washington Basin. Lacey, WA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
. Updates and clarifications regarding Johns Creek are included in Final EIS Chapter 4.
City of Renton
Chapter 5. Responses to Comments
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5-10 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Comment Number Response 12-2 Recommend that Johns Creek Basin Flow Control Duration Standard Be Applied as required for
Honey and May Creek Basins: The percentage of impervious area within the Johns Creek Basin prior to 1985 was greater than 40%; therefore, the predeveloped condition to be matched is the existing land cover condition. Furthermore, Johns Creek west of I-405 is classified as a major receiving water body, which does not require duration flow control. The basis for this determination is in the report Enhanced Transportation Project Delivery
Through Watershed Characterization, produced by the Washington State Department of Transportation Urban Corridors Office in collaboration with the Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Muckleshoot Tribe. Therefore, the relevant stormwater requirements for flow control within the Johns Creek Basin are to maintain the capacity of the existing storm drainage system by matching peak flows from the existing land coverage and to construct flow-control best management practices (BMPs), where feasible. Public infrastructure improvements within the Johns Creek Basin will reduce impervious area and provide additional flow control through implementation of flow-control BMPs associated with the Sunset Terrace redevelopment, implementation of green connections projects (i.e., retrofitting existing right-of-way with green stormwater infrastructure), provision of water quality facilities for redevelopment of NE Sunset Boulevard and construction of regional detention/retention facilities. The advance flow control mitigation strategy is to evaluate the total reduction in effective impervious area (which is a reasonable approximation of the net total runoff volume from the study area) that would result from the public infrastructure improvements to offset future redevelopment projects. Future redevelopment projects will be required to comply with the City’s peak flow control standard in its stormwater code. However, the requirement to match existing peak discharges would extend to the limits of the Planned Action Study Area (rather than the specific development site), and existing peak discharges would be based on current (2011) conditions not the conditions at the time of construction. Where private property developments would result in a total effective impervious area that exceeds current (2011) existing conditions in the study area, the peak flow control standard would need to be met on site. Private property improvements are required to provide flow-control BMPs where feasible. Although the EIS analysis shows a potential increase to the total impervious surface area within the Planned Action Study Area, the implementation of green stormwater infrastructure through public improvements and incremental installation of flow-control BMPs, as required with redevelopment, will maintain or reduce the total “effective” impervious area, defined as the impervious area directly connected to the downstream system. Therefore, minimal changes to runoff volume are anticipated.
City of Renton
Chapter 5. Responses to Comments
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5-11 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Comment Number Response 12-3 Recommend LID Techniques: The comment is noted and forwarded for decision-maker consideration. Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative include implementation of green infrastructure and a drainage master plan. See Final EIS Chapter 2. Additionally, it should be noted that the minimum requirements for private and public property do not differ. All private and public property projects are required to meet the minimum requirements under City stormwater codes. Implementation of green stormwater infrastructure projects will vary by site conditions, largely depending upon geotechnical considerations (i.e., the feasibility to infiltrate stormwater). Draft EIS Figure 3.3-2 summarizes conditions that affect infiltration feasibility. Green stormwater infrastructure will be implemented on individual lots per the flow-control BMPs standard. This standard requires projects to fully disperse or infiltrate roof runoff, where feasible. Where full infiltration or dispersion is not feasible, projects are required to implement flow-control BMPs (including full or limited infiltration, dispersion, rain gardens, permeable pavements, rainwater harvesting, vegetated roofs, reduced impervious surfaces and native growth protection) to target either 10% or 20% of the site area, depending on the size and density of the site. Implementation of individual flow-control BMPs (or green stormwater infrastructure) will vary by site conditions. Public infrastructure projects (e.g., green connections, NE Sunset Boulevard, and Sunset Terrace) included in this Planned Action are planned to achieve an enhanced minimum performance standard for implementing flow-control BMPs, which is double the minimums for private development (BMPs are described in Draft EIS Section 4.3 and in Final EIS Section 3.4). Letter 13: Christine B. Reichgott, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 13-1 Link Mitigation Goals to a Monitoring Plan or Program: The primary monitoring tool will be the Planned Action Ordinance that is included in draft form in Draft EIS Appendix C and revised form as Final EIS Appendix D. Section 4 of the draft ordinance includes “Monitoring and Review.” Also, Exhibit B of that draft ordinance cross references the mitigation measures that public or private development/activities will need to incorporate (Exhibit B now cross references mitigation in Chapter 1 of the Draft EIS). The proposed ordinance incorporates the final mitigation measures directly and gives clear roles and responsibilities about who is to implement the mitigation measure and when; language is more specific with the mitigation language moving from “should” to “shall” The proposed Planned Action Ordinance also includes guidance about measuring sustainability. 13-2 NEPA Analysis is Adequate—Now Can Define a Preferred Alternative: The comment is noted. The Final EIS analyzes a Preferred Alternative. 13-3 Preferred Alternative Should Incorporate to the Maximum Quality Urban Design, Sustainable
Urban Development, and Livability Principles: The comment is noted. The Final EIS analyzes a Preferred Alternative, documents compatibility with goals identified in Draft EIS Chapter 2, Section 2.6.3, and identifies urban design requirements per City code, sustainability measures incorporated, and how these support livability principles. 13-4 Recommend Selected Transportation Features (Largely from Alternative 3): All the listed bulleted items were considered as part of the Preferred Alternative. Please see Final EIS Chapter 2. 13-5 Recommend Mitigation Measures be Carried Forward in Section 1.6: The comment is noted and was forwarded for decision-maker consideration. Based on the level of conceptual planning, some of the measures would be better known at the time of construction plans, and thus the City may continue a “menu”-based approach to encourage a variety of appropriate measures that would be determined feasible at a more detailed stage of planning. Please also see response to Comment 13-1. 13-6 Desired Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures: Please see response to comment 13-5.
City of Renton
Chapter 5. Responses to Comments
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5-12 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Comment Number Response 13-7 Other Sustainability Measures:
Diesel Emissions: Three mitigation measures are included in the Draft and Final EIS that would reduce diesel emissions during construction:
Maintain the engines of construction equipment according to manufacturers’ specifications.
Minimize idling of equipment while the equipment is not in use.
If there is heavy traffic during some periods of the day, scheduling haul traffic during off-peak times (e.g., between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.) would have the least effect on traffic and would minimize indirect increases in traffic-related emissions. Model Contract Specifications suggested by EPA to reduce diesel emissions are a feasible measure and not cost-prohibitive, but they may only reduce the cumulative risk slightly as follows:
Feasibility: For diesel particulate cancer risks, EPA’s website shows that other public works projects have implemented requirements for construction contractors to either retrofit their equipment with control devices to reduce diesel particular matter emissions, or to use brand-new equipment that achieves the same goal. The control devices are commercially available, and the costs for the retrofits would presumably be passed to the property owner (e.g., RHA) as part of the bid price. The additional cost would likely be only a few percent of the overall construction bids. Note that EPA’s website does not include any examples from the West Coast and investigation with other agencies (e.g., Washington State Department of Transportation) may be appropriate.
Based on the information in Draft EIS Section 3.2.1, an estimate of the diesel cancer impacts shows:
o Action alternatives (project-only) diesel cancer risk: 2 per million
o Mitigated action alternatives (project-only) risk: 1 per million
o Background/No Action diesel cancer risk (NATA data): 470 per million
o Action alternatives cumulative diesel impact without mitigation: 472 per million
o Action alternatives cumulative risk with added mitigation: 471 per million In summary, the suggested mitigation measure would be feasible and not cost-prohibitive, but it would reduce the cumulative risk only slightly. Should the phases of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea occur concurrently rather than in a phased and sequential manner, the City and RHA will consider adding the Northeast Diesel Collaborative Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects – Model Contract Specifications as additional mitigation.
Midblock Connections: As part of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative, mid-block pedestrian connections are considered (see Final EIS Chapter 2; topography and space between Sunset Terrace conceptual plan buildings 9 and 10 allow for a mid-block connection). Also, Final EIS Figure 2-18 (same as Draft EIS Figure 2-14) provides a map of potential pedestrian connection opportunities for the broader study area.
Transportation Management District: The City does not foresee a need for a transportation management district in the study area; however the Planned Action Ordinance allows for monitoring implementation and this could be considered in the future.
Community Gardens: The Sunset Terrace public housing redevelopment creates opportunities for parks and open space activities, which could include community gardens. At the time of more specific site designs, the City and RHA could consider identifying some portion of the central park identified in the Preferred Alternative as a community garden. Final EIS Figure 2-11 includes the following note on the Preferred Alternative concept diagram for Sunset Terrace: “The central open space will be designed and programmed at a later date. Considerations would include active and passive recreation, community gardens, and community gathering areas.”
City of Renton
Chapter 5. Responses to Comments
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 5-13 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Comment Number Response 13-8 Recommend a Systematic Analytical Process to Determine Maximum Combination of
Implementable Sustainability Features: The comment is noted. A checklist of how the Preferred Alternative addresses the proposal goals and objectives is provided as Final EIS Appendix A. 13-9 Monitoring: The comment is noted. Please see response to comment 10-1. 13-10 Quantitative Mitigation Measures, Adaptive Management: The comment is noted. Please see response to comment 10-1.
From:Erika Conkling
To:Grueter, Lisa; "Roger Mason";
Subject:FW: KC Metro Transit Comments on Sunset Area Planned Action/
EIS, LUA 10-052
Date:Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:35:31 PM
Erika Conkling, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax
econkling@rentonwa.gov
From: Kriedt, Gary [mailto:Gary.Kriedt@kingcounty.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 4:18 PM
To: Erika Conkling
Cc: Hahn, LG; Johnson, Doug
Subject: KC Metro Transit Comments on Sunset Area Planned Action/EIS, LUA 10-
052
Hi Erika -- King County Metro Transit staff reviewed the Sunset Area Planned
Action/EIS (LUA 10-052) and we have the following comments.
Transit Service in the Area:
The project area is served by two all-day Metro bus routes (105 & 240), a peak
direction commuter route operating to/from downtown Seattle (111), and two local
van routes (908 & 909). With these five routes the area is fairly well served by
transit.
Route 240 is the primary transit service through the general area and it serves the
immediate Sunset Terrace redevelopment area. It operates along NE Sunset Blvd
between Renton and Bellevue every 30 minutes Monday-Saturday and hourly
on Sunday. The 240 was designated as a core service in the Six-Year
Development Plan, with targeted frequency improvements of 15 minutes in the
weekday peak and 30 minutes on Sunday (neither have yet been implemented due
to the on-going Metro budget shortfall).
Route 909 operates along Harrington Ave NE and NE Sunset Blvd - east of
Harrington. The primary bus zones serving Sunset Terrace are located eastbound
on NE Sunset Blvd. farside of Harrington Ave. NE (240, 909), westbound on Sunset
farside of Harrington (240) and southbound on Harrington farside of Sunset
1
1
(909).
Bus Stop Improvement Request:
Metro requests that improvements be made to a bus stop on Harrington Ave. NE
just north of NE 7th St. heading north (bus stop number 46558). That bus stop is
currently substandard and could use a 10 ft. X 4 ft. ADA landing area at the back
of the sidewalk. Please contact LG Hahn, Transit Planner, at 206-684-1725, lg.
hahn@kingcounty.gov, to discuss.
Thank you!
Gary Kriedt, Senior Environmental Planner
Metro Transit
201 South Jackson St., MS KSC-TR-0431
Seattle, WA 98104-3856
(206) 684-1166 fax: (206)-684-1900
gary.kriedt@kingcounty.gov
2
1 cont.
From:Erika Conkling
To:Grueter, Lisa; "Roger Mason";
Subject:FW: Sunsent Area Community Planned Action DEIS Comments LUA#10-052
Date:Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:38:16 PM
Attachments:Sunset Area Community DEIS Comments.pdf
Erika Conkling, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax
econkling@rentonwa.gov
From: Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP) [mailto:Gretchen.Kaehler@DAHP.wa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:35 PM
To: Erika Conkling
Subject: Re: Sunsent Area Community Planned Action DEIS Comments LUA#10-
052
Ms. Conkling,
Please see attached comments.
Thank you,
Gretchen
Gretchen Kaehler
Assistant State Archaeologist, Local Governments
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
Olympia
Ph:360-586-3088
Cell:360-628-2755
2
1
2
2
From:Mielcarek, Ryan E
To:Grueter, Lisa; SEA Washington State PHAs, mrg; "Erika Conkling"; "Mark Santos-Johnson"; Wilder, Jim; Wall, Richard B;
Tennison, Carmen; Zinck, Dean; Stewart, Harlan; Heston, Alfred; Hudgeons, Jeremy; Jensen, Sara;
Peavlerstewart, Deborah;
Subject:Sunset Terrace Noise Mitigation
Date:Tuesday, January 04, 2011 4:26:05 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Fig2-10.pdf
Sunset Terrace DEIS Noise Mitigation.PDF
Lisa and Co.,
We regret we could not summarize these answers to your questions in time for the Draft EIS, but are hopeful this might
be helpful in preparing for the Final EIS.
Noise Mitigation for Sunset Terrace DEIS:
The Responsible Entity (City of Renton) does have the authority to exercise the 24 CFR 55.105 exception to raise the
acceptable noise zone from 65Ldn to 70Ldn as long as all of the requirements of §55.105 are met and documented with
explicit approval from the Certifying Officer (Mayor) as to why the noise attenuation measures that would normally be
required for new construction in the Ldn 65 to Ldn 70 zone cannot be met.
In addition to the requirements of §51.105, the Special Requirements of §51.104 must also be met, requiring "a minimum of
5 decibels additional sound attenuation for buildings having noise-sensitive uses if the day-night average sound level is
greater than 65 decibels but does not exceed 70 decibels, or a minimum of 10 decibels of additional sound attenuation if
the day-night average sound level is greater than 70 decibels but does not exceed 75 decibels."
Concerning the opening of windows: The opening of windows and the requirements for mechanical ventilation are
addressed in Chapter 4, Page 35 of the HUD Noise Guidebook and copied below. Being that opening of windows will expose
the units adjacent to Sunset Road to levels above the HUD interior noise maximum of 45 decibels, it is generally required
that these units contain sealed windows and that mechanical ventilation be installed. However, there is a cavaet of
resident choice in this matter. (1) If it is the resident's choice to open the window, and (2) that choice is not imposed
upon them by excessive temperatures or conditions based on regional norms, i.e., (AC not utilized in the NW), and (3) there
is no mechanical ventilation or air conditioning present in the rest of the building, and (4) the noise environment external to
the building complies with the Site Acceptability Standards of §51.103, and (5) §51.103(c)(ii) the building is constructed in
a manner common to the area or, if of uncommon construction, has at least the equivalent noise attenuation
characteristics, and (6) the Certifying Officer uses his/her authority to require and RHA accepts that all reasonable attempts
will be made to meet the HUD Interior Noise Goals when windows are unopened with §51.101(9), which state that "It is a
HUD goal that the interior auditory environment shall not exceed a day-night average sound level of 45 decibels.
Attenuation measures to meet these interior goals shall be employed where feasible. Emphasis shall be given to noise
sensitive interior spaces such as bedrooms. Minimum attenuation requirements are prescribed in 51.104(a)., then the
project can proceed without the requirement of sealing the windows.
Particular attention should be paid to ensure that special construction and ventilation techniques used to address
mitigation requirements is done in a fair and equitable manner that does not favor one group of individuals over another.
This is, unless of course, particular units or techniques are used to specifically address a particular population (i.e., breathe
easy units for those suffering from asthma).
Concerning the space between Sunset Rd and the Multifamily structures: Working of the schematics of Alternative 3,
of particular interest is the possible open green space between Sunset Rd. and the multifamily structures. We here again get
in to the issue of resident choice and opportunity fused with the requirements of acceptable noise levels. As long as
residents are not forced to utilize a particular area of a site that exposes them to the highest noise levels of the site,
then residents can use that area as long as it is not designed for noise-sensitive uses that could become unsafe for residents.
An example of this would be purposively building a playground in the grassy area between Sunset Rd. and the
prospective units. The noise level must be at a level where a parent can give directions to their child on that playground
in order to provide for their safety. If there were no other options to enjoy a playground except one built where children
were forced to play where noise levels are normally unacceptable and unsafe, then this would be unacceptable. It does
appear that the planners have contemplated green space throughout the site plan that provide equitable and safe
resident options, but the details concerning the subject parcel of land are not apparent through the limited sketches available.
Other thoughts: The Alternative 3 sketch does indicate a good balance between designing a walkable, pedestrian
friendly streetscape that allows for an adequate traffic flow, albeit calmed, that has available parking on the street. Perhaps
the addition of inter-connected bike lanes throughout the proposed site and NE Sunset Blvd could add to this
3
1
2
3
sustainable neighborhood.
24 CFR Part 58.4(a) stipulates that "Responsible entities shall assume the responsibility for environmental review,
decision-making, and action that would otherwise apply to HUD.." We are confident that the City of Renton will take the
proper course of action concerning the requirements outlined above and in accordance with all applicable regulations.
Final Thought: We appreciate the cooperation and outreach to the HUD office regarding these noise requirements and
the redevelopment of Sunset Terrace as a whole. Early involvement is key to a successful partnership and
regulatory compliance throughout the length of this project.
Ryan E. Mielcarek
PHRS-Facilities Management
Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
HUD Region X Seattle 206-220-6205
RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
January 5, 2011 Renton City Hall
6:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Planning Commissioners Present: Michael Chen, Michael Drollinger, Ray Giometti, Gwendolyn High, Michael
O’Halloran, Nancy Osborn, Kevin Poole, Ed Prince
Planning Commissioner Absent: Martin Regge
City Staff Present: Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator; Chip Vincent, Planning Director; Erika Conkling, Senior
Planner; Judith Subia, Administrative Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER: Commission Chair Prince called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Commission Vice Chair Drollinger called roll. Commissioner Regge was absent and excused.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of November 3, December 1, and December 8, 2010 were approved
as written.
4. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED: None
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS: None
6. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None
7. DIRECTOR’S REPORT:
The Quendall Terminals DEIS comment meeting was held last night. As a result of numerous requests,
the comment period has been extended. The DEIS will be presented to the Commission in the near
future.
CED and Council are working on the 2011 Planning Work Program. We are looking to schedule a Joint
Planning & Development Committee and Planning Commission meeting. Possible dates include
February 2, 16, March 2, and 16.
Chip shared a letter from Mayor Law to Rich Wagner, a former PC member of 14 years, who recently
received a lifetime achievement award from AIA.
8. SUNSET AREA PLANNED ACTION/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) BRIEFING:
Alex gave a short introduction regarding the work done so far on this project. Erika and Lisa Grueter,
consultant from ICF International, gave a presentation regarding this item.
AudienceComment
Linda Perrine (Renton, WA): Ms. Perrine owns a duplex near Glenwood and Edmonds. She has a question
about new jobs that is referenced in the presentation. She also has a question regarding buildings being
built, but no storm improvements being made. Erika answered that these new jobs would be permanent
4
1
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2 of 2
January 5, 2011
jobs, not relating to the construction or development of the project. When new buildings are built, the
developer needs to comply with the necessary improvements.
Howard McOmber, Highlands Community Association President (Renton, WA): Mr. McOmber has a question
regarding greenway drainage. Erika explained that this drainage includes rain gardens or swales that are in
the right of way, requiring an 8-foot planting strip, where a low impact development style stormwater vault
can be installed. Mr. McOmber asked if more width for rights of way will be needed. Erika explained that in
many cases, the rights of way are very large. There are areas along Sunset Blvd that may need additional
right of way. He also asked that the City not use eminent domain, be flexibilie so a developer can be
creative with development, and keep the costs (such as impact fees) low for developers.
Sandel DeMastus, Highlands Community Association Vice President (Renton, WA): Ms. DeMastus is
concerned about the elderly and wants to make sure the seniors and disabled are taken care of.
Angie Pretty (Renton, WA): Ms. Pretty had a question regarding housing affordability and its impacts to the
School District. Erika answered that the City has been working with RSD to ensure that growth can be
accommodated by RSD.
9. SUNSET AREA PLANNED ACTION/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) PUBLIC HEARING:
AudienceComment
Kathleen Ossenkop (Renton, WA): Ms. Ossenkop has been a property owner in the Highlands for over 40
years. She has seen a great deal of new investment and revitalization in the last 15 years. She’s concerned
that the City does not understand what the long term residents have seen. Adding 500 properties into the
Highlands will impact the residents that already live there. She is in favor of the Evergreen Terrace type of
housing for seniors.
Karen Williams, Housing Development Consortium of King County (Seattle, WA): Ms. Williams thanked
City staff for the work that has been done so far, especially partnering with the Renton Housing
Authority to ensure that there are benefits for the low income residents.
Lori McFarland (Renton, WA): Ms. McFarland is grateful for the work that the City is doing. As a long
time resident and a design engineer, she talked about interconnection of traffic signals. Pedestrians
end up 20 to 25 feet away from heavy traffic. This greatly improves traffic congestion and pedestrian
safety. Ms. McFarland is in favor of Alternative #3.
Jim Houghton (Bellevue, WA): Mr. Houghton owns property in the Highlands. He is currently working
with the Planning staff to build a 10-unit condominium project for senior housing with affordable
housing. The ARCH (A Regional Coalition for Housing) program greatly facilitates the sales of affordable
housing and encouraged the City to become a part of this program.
10. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Written comments on the Sunset Area Planned Action/EIS will be accepted
through January 31, 2011. The next Commission meeting will be on January 19, 2011.
11. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:33 p.m.
Ed Prince, Chair
Michael O’Halloran, Secretary
1 cont.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5
1
2
3
4
5
From:Erika Conkling
To:Grueter, Lisa;
cc:"Roger.Mason@CH2M.com";
Subject:FW: HDC Comments on Sunset Area
Date:Monday, January 24, 2011 4:19:28 PM
Attachments:Sunset Area Testimony 1-2011.pdf
Erika Conkling, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax
econkling@rentonwa.gov
From: Karen Williams [mailto:Karen@housingconsortium.org]
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 4:03 PM
To: Erika Conkling; Chip Vincent
Subject: HDC Comments on Sunset Area
Erika & Chip,
Attached is my testimony from the Sunset Area public hearing on January 5th.
As I’ve said to both of you, and I mentioned in my testimony, HDC supports the
mixed-use, mixed income goals of the Sunset Area plan. HDC wants to ensure that
this redevelopment does not increase the affordable housing challenges that low-
income, working families already face in Renton, by overlooking the potential loss
of private, affordable rental stock and displacement of low-income households.
This concern is not unique to Renton, but rather is a challenge in all neighborhood
redevelopment, where investments tend to increase property values and displace
existing residents when properties are redeveloped and housing costs increase.
HDC wants to acknowledge that the city of Renton has demonstrated clear efforts
to support affordability in Renton, through its partnership with RHA, through its
commitment to capital in its Housing Opportunity Fund, and in policies developed
by its human services and planning departments. HDC wants to commend Renton
for these accomplishments and hopes that the recommendations attached will be
considered as additional tools that the city can use further its affordable housing
goals.
6
Thanks to both of you for all you have done on this plan.
Thanks,
Karen Williams
Suburban Cities Policy Director
Housing Development Consortium
1402 Third Avenue, Suite 709
Seattle, WA 98101
206.682.9541
www.housingconsortium.org
Every Heart Needs A Home.
Join HDC in Olympia on February 14th for Housing and Homelessness Advocacy
Day.
Help us bring 200 advocates from King County,Register here.
6
1
2
3
4
5
5
cont.
7
1
From:Erika Conkling
To:Grueter, Lisa; Roger.Mason@CH2M.com;
Subject:FW: Submittion of Statement on Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Date:Friday, January 28, 2011 8:01:50 AM
Attachments:SunsetAreaCommunityPlannedAction.docx
Erika Conkling, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax
econkling@rentonwa.gov
From: Linda C. Perrine [mailto:Linda.Perrine@accesstpa.com]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 7:22 AM
To: Erika Conkling
Cc: Linda C. Perrine
Subject: Submittion of Statement on Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Hello Erica:
I have finally put together a letter stating some of the concerns on the development right next door to me. I hate this legal
stuff and the uncertainty that this development makes me feel with my rental investment. Anyway, I am sending you a letter
via post just to be formal about my concerns. But just to make sure you get it before the deadline on January 31st, I am
attaching it in this email as well.
Thank you for your time in explaining what you could to me.
Linda Perrine
303 Seneca Ave NW
Renton, WA 98057
Linda.Perrine@accesstpa.com
DISCLAIMER:
The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is
unauthorized.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message,
or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. Thank you
8
January 27, 2011
City of Renton
Department of Community and Economic Development
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Re: Sunset Area Community Planned Action
I would like to submit my comments and questions regarding the Sunset Area Community Planned
Action using this letter.
I am the owner of the property located at 1155-57 Glennwood Ave NE, Renton, WA 98057. This
property is adjacent to the RHA owned property on Glennwood Ave NE, Renton, WA 98057. My father
owns the property on the other side of the RHA and his property is 1133 Glennwood Ave NE. The RHA
property between my father and I is mentioned frequently in the Sunset plan as being slated to be
developed with high density housing. The current use of our properties are rentals which we try to
keep in good repair and try to rent to responsible families. I have just lately moved from living in my
rental and had lived it in for 15 years so I am quite attached to it still and my ties to this property are
strong. This is our only rental properties that we own. We are not developers or business owners. My
father is a retired person of 80 years old with modest to no income. I am single and have just purchased
a house on the west side of Renton above the airport.
I have tried my best to read and understand the over 400 pages of the EIS statement and I have several
concerns regarding this project and the impact to our rental properties. The concerns that I will make
below are purely on the development being planned on the RHA property between mine and my
father’s property. My comments also pertain to all alternatives because each of the 3 alternatives have
a building(s) being built on this RHA property next to me and my father. They just vary in size and
impact to me. To prevent me from rambling or repeating myself I would like to bullet point my
comments and tell you why I have issues with it and then go on to the next issue and then close my
letter.
The building(s) being built are not of the same type as the surrounding neighborhood.
The current houses are duplexes with 1 family on each side of the duplex. So having a large
building, and in some alternatives, a set of buildings with multiple floors and lots of families will
not be in character to the current neighborhood. I realize that the zoning allows for this, and I
fought tooth and nail against that re-zoning, and lost, of course.
The zoning allows for building bonuses that are unreasonable to this neighborhood. These plans
take advantage of that and they are building to the highest extent of that code. Again this high
density is not in line with the present housing type and I have never agreed with it. The zoning
was in great opposition when it was put in place and now I am going to get it right next door to
the highest level. It is unsuitable and will change the character to the property I bought.
1
8
1
2
Glennwood Ave NE is one lane wide: Hardly wide enough to support parking and a right of way
at the same time. And certainly not if cars park on both side of the street. It was never
intended to have a high density building on this street and the traffic that goes with it. The
development plans are not planning on addressing this and ignore this fact entirely. The people
who live on this street often park on the sidewalk as it is because parking a car on the street
feels like you are actually in the right of way.
There is not enough parking to support the current residents so if the parking for these
building’s happen to overflow onto Glennwood Ave from the planned parking lot, then they will
take the parking of the current residents and the area will be less friendly to sustain my renters.
Families with children play in the street with bikes and other toys. This is a family area and not
much traffic comes through so parents feel fairly safe with the kids outside riding bikes, trikes
and other activities. These kids are too young to allow walking to a park without parents. Often
the parents are inside cooking etc. where going to the park is not possible so either the kids play
right outside or not at all. The more traffic the less that play is possible and the more dangerous
it becomes.
These new buildings will cast shade on our duplexes making them less attractive to live at: My
renters can put sun chairs outside and enjoy the sun and a garden but these buildings will block
light and the feel of openness will be lost and recoupable.
The parking area in all of the alternatives will have 24 hours light will cast light inside our
duplexes and our properties making it feel intrusive and commercial.
The attraction of a duplex is that you are not living in a commercial area: I have attracted many
renters in the past because they don’t want to live in a high residential area. I am now going to
lose that as an attraction for a renter because I have high density housing right next door.
Increased traffic of strangers to the neighborhood: The increase of pedestrian traffic unknown
to my renters and neighbors will be unsettling and make my renters feel vulnerable. Another
attraction of our duplexes are that we are off the beaten road so less traffic means a lower
profile. These proposed buildings change that feel and expirence.
The turnover of the residents in these apartment buildings will be unsettling and will also make
my renters feel vulnerable and I will lose the feeling of consistency and safety.
Increased noise: The noise of vehicles parking, starting, large garbage trucks (they come early in
the morning), cars traveling too fast, people talking and interacting outside will increase and will
be at inconvenient times of the day. I speak from reference because there is a 2 story
apartment complex on Edmonds Ave and their parking lot shares a fence line with the back of
my property. Even though that parking lot butts up to my fairly large back yard as is away from
the actual living area in my duplex, I have a lot of noise from it. From car alarms, people
working on their cars, people talking and/yelling, garbage trucks. You name it, it happens.
Especially in lower rent areas where behaviors sometimes are not as neighborly or thoughtful.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
3
Garbage thrown over the fence onto my property: Again I speak from experience that garbage
will be thrown from the new properties apartment building and parking area over the shared
fence onto my property. My experience that oil containers, soda cans to used drug needles are
thrown over. I was able to combat that a little by creating a very tall tree barrier along my rear
fence but I’m sure a 20 foot string of trees dividing my property and the RHA property is not
going to be wanted and it is difficult for me to maintain.
Construction activity will negatively impact our ability to rent and to retain current renters. The
noise the dust the large machine activity.
I am unable to determine from the alternatives what the building layout will actually be because
the current zoning code says that parking must be in behind the housing and in alternative 2 or
3 (I can’t remember) the parking lot is shown to be right off of Glennwood. How can I state my
comments in whole when they don’t even know what they are going to do?
I have listed several but not all of my concerns. I would like to have the ability to bring up issues as they
arise. I am also concerned that the RHA not having to submit EIS’s on additional building projects as
they go along because it would negate me being able to comment on them. I realize that it is easier and
more cost effective for them but how will the public who will be impacted get any say?
Thank you for your attention on this issue and please contact me if there are any questions or if further
clarification is needed.
Linda Perrine
306 Seneca Ave NW
Renton, WA 98057
Linda.Perrine@Accesstpa.com
12
13
14
15
From:Erika Conkling
To:Grueter, Lisa; Roger.Mason@CH2M.com;
Subject:FW: DOI Comments - DEIS for HUD Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Date:Friday, January 28, 2011 8:01:38 AM
Attachments:ER10_1074_deis.pdf
Erika Conkling, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax
econkling@rentonwa.gov
From: Mandy Stanford [mailto:m-stanford@qwestoffice.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 4:23 PM
To: Erika Conkling
Cc: 'Allison O'Brien'
Subject: DOI Comments - DEIS for HUD Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Attached, please find the Department of the Interior’s comments on the subject
DEIS.
Thank you,
Mandy
Mandy Stanford
Regional Environmental Protection Assistant
United States Department of the Interior
620 SW Main Street, Suite 201
Portland, OR 97205
Phone: (503) 326-2489
Fax: (503) 326-2494
9
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
620 SW Main Street, Suite 201
Portland, Oregon 97205-3026
9043.1
IN REPLY REFER TO
ER10/1074
Electronically Filed
January 27, 2011
Erika Conkling
AICP, Senior Planner
City of Renton
Department of Community and Economic Development
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98057
Dear Ms. Conkling:
The Department of the Interior has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
HUD Sunset Area Community Planned Action, City of Renton, Washington. The Department
does not have any comments to offer.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Allison O’Brien
Acting Regional Environmental Officer
9
1
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
cont.
8
9
10
11
From:Grueter, Lisa
To:Bendixen, Carmen;
Subject:FW: Sunset Area Planned Action Comments
Date:Monday, January 31, 2011 1:02:42 PM
Another one…
From: Erika Conkling [mailto:EConkling@Rentonwa.gov]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 1:02 PM
To: Grueter, Lisa; Roger.Mason@CH2M.com
Subject: FW: Sunset Area Planned Action Comments
Erika Conkling, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax
econkling@rentonwa.gov
From: Mylarsen [mailto:mylarsen@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 12:39 PM
To: Erika Conkling
Subject: Sunset Area Planned Action Comments
I reviewed the binder explaining the various redevelopment proposals for the
Sunset area. My observations are:
The Highlands Library definitely needs a larger facility. The public computer
stations need to be increased.
The layout of the Highlands retail spaces, and ingress and egress, are jumbled and
need to be redefined.
The Harrington Square Apts staff were hoping to rent 52 units by 12/31/10. Instead,
they rented over 100 units. There is a definite demand for more and better housing
in the area.
With the "graying of America," the Highlands could benefit from having dedicated
senior citizen housing.
11
1
2
3
4
The children of Sunset Terrace need the community facilities area, so that they
have another place to play and congregate, other than in the street.
The increase in mixed-income units would benefit both the library expansion and
the new retail space.
The traffic corridor along Sunset needs to be enhanced to better protect the
pedestrian. Adding trees and plants would help.
Let's put Renton into the group of "intelligent cities" by proceeding with the Sunset
Terrace Redevelopment Plan #3.
Keep up the good work, Erika!
Myrne Larsen
950 Harrington NE, N306 (formerly lived 20 years in Lower Kennydale)
Renton, WA 98056-3125
425-442-2641
5
6
7
From:Grueter, Lisa
To:Bendixen, Carmen;
Subject:FW: Sunset Area Community Planned Action, LUA10-052. Draft NEPA/
SEPA Environmental Impact Statement
Date:Monday, January 31, 2011 4:07:09 PM
Attachments:RTabor-Seattle-mtg-12-08-2010[1].pdf
Another one
From: Erika Conkling [mailto:EConkling@Rentonwa.gov]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:02 PM
To: Grueter, Lisa; Roger.Mason@CH2M.com
Subject: FW: Sunset Area Community Planned Action, LUA10-052. Draft NEPA/
SEPA Environmental Impact Statement
Erika Conkling, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax
econkling@rentonwa.gov
From: Karen Walter [mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:00 PM
To: Erika Conkling
Subject: Sunset Area Community Planned Action, LUA10-052. Draft NEPA/SEPA
Environmental Impact Statement
Ms. Conkling,
The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the above referenced project. We offer
the following comments in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe’s treaty
protected fisheries resources.
1. As noted in the DEIS, 243 acres of the proposed redeveloped area (from
a total of 269 acres in the Planned Action Study Area) drain to Johns Creek,
a tributary to Lake Washington. We are concerned that the DEIS did not
adequately address potential impacts to Johns Creek and salmon that use it,
in particularly juvenile chinook (see attached PDF). Nowhere in the DEIS
does it mention salmon use in Johns Creek and the potential for stormwater
12
1
discharges to adversely salmon in Johns Creek. In fact, the DEIS states (on
page 3.4-1), “stormwater originating from most of the Planned Action Study
Area enters the City storm sewer system and has no potential to affects
plants or animals.” Furthermore, the DEIS states (page 3.4-3), “No aquatic
habitat has been identified within the Planned Action Study Area, but aquatic
habitat does occur in the form of streams in Honey Creek and May Creek,
which receive stormwater from portions of the Planned Action Study Area.”
Again, Johns Creek is not mentioned in this section or adequately assessed
for potential impacts to juvenile salmon in Johns Creek from stormwater
discharges (both quantity and quality. The FEIS needs to provide additional
information and analysis to address this concern.
2. We are concerned that stormwater discharges as a result of projects
implemented under this DEIS (regardless of alternative chosen) could further
degrade habitat conditions for juvenile salmon in Johns Creek. Per the DEIS,
Johns Creek is a flow-control-exempt water body (page 3.3-1). As a result,
stormwater detention is not required for projects discharging stormwater to
Johns Creek. As noted in the attached PDF, Johns Creek is providing
important non-natal habitat for juvenile chinook. Juvenile salmon can be
flushed out of streams as a result of stormwater discharges that occur from
both increases in peak flows as well as longer durations of higher flows that
create flushing conditions and flow conditions that exceed juvenile salmon’s
abilities to maintain positions. Per the DEIS, it appears that City may
require additional flow control within the Johns Creek Basin to match peak
flow rates under existing conditions. This approach will not address
increases in water flow durations and will likely result in adverse impacts to
juvenile salmon in Johns Creek that could potentially be avoided. Instead,
we recommend that the projects within Johns Creek basin be required to
comply with the more stringent Flow Control Duration Standard as required
for May and Honey Creek basins to protect juvenile salmon and low velocity
habitat in Johns Creek.
3. We also recommend that all projects developed and redeveloped under
this proposal, regardless of the chosen alternative, maximize the use of low
impact development techniques to better manage stormwater discharges and
stormwater water quality and reduce potential impacts to improve
downstream receiving water conditions. Low impact development
techniques include a variety of measures, including but not limited to, the
treatment and infiltration of stormwater to reduce stormwater impacts
generated at the developed site. A full suite of low impact development
techniques should be considered to minimize stormwater impacts and
maximize mitigation throughout the planned action study area.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal and its associated
DEIS. Please let me know if you have any questions.
1
cont.
2
3
Thank you,
Karen Walter
Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division
39015 172nd Ave SE
Auburn, WA 98092
253-876-3116
Habitat Use of Juvenile Chinook Salmon in Lake Washington and the Ship CanalU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 12
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Employees•Chris Allar•Matthew Arasim•Eric Bixler•Becky Braley•Eleanor Bosman-Clark•Sergio Camacho•Steven Celedonia•Bob Clement•Hilary Collis•James Curtis•Steve Damm•Steve Dilley•Emily Dunklee•Tay Dunklee•Molly Ehlert•William Gale•Howard Gearns•Ian Grettenberger•Stephen Hager •Richard Piaskowski•Jon-Michael Pratt•Benjamin Price•Sharon Rainsberry•Sean Rubey•Scott Sanders•Briana Shrier•Jamie Sproul•Tracey Scalici•Julie Scheurer•Lauren Seyda•James Steele•Eric Tallman•Brad Thompson•Heather Tschaekofske•Lindsy Wright•Bob Wunderlich•Mathew Wynn•Matthew Zimmer •Andrea Henton•Jack Holbrook•Jonathan Hyde•Nathan Hyde•Christine Iverson•Kevin Kennedy•Hwa Kim•Dan Lantz•Tracy Leavy•Fan Lee•Terence Lee•Zhuozhuo Li•Zuma Martin•Charles McCoy III•Linda Moore•Eric Myers•Thomas Mohagen•Sedge Neil•Kenneth Ostrand•Roger Peters
AcknowledgementsSeattle Public Utilities –SPUKeith Kurko, Julie Crittenden, Michele KoehlerUS Army Corps of Engineers –USCOEFred GoetzWashington State Department of Transportation –WSDOTPhil BlochKing CountyCity of Mercer IslandWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife –WDFWUniversity of Washington –UWCity of Renton Hydroacoustic Technology Inc–HTIMuckleshoot Tribe –MIT
Study Objective•Determine habitat requirements of juvenile Chinook salmon in Lake Washington and Ship Canal–Determine relationship between habitat use and shoreline development–Identify potential types of restoration activities and monitor ongoing restoration projects–Determine habitat use of key predators of juvenile Chinook salmon–Determine movement patterns of emigrating Chinook smolts–Evaluate fish passage of Chinook salmon at the Ballard Locks
Timeline•2001-2005 - Early rearing period in nearshore areas –primarily south Lake Washington•2004-2008–Smolts - movement and habitat use in Lake Washington and Ship Canal•2004-2008 - Habitat use and seasonal movement of predatory fishes in Lake Washington and Ship Canal•2007-2008–Movement patterns of smolts andpredatory fishes at SR 520 Bridge
Reports:www.fws.gov/wafwo/fisheries/wwfish_pub4.htmlroger_tabor@fws.govmark_celedonia@fws.gov
February -AprilApril-MayMay-JulyJuvenile Chinook Salmon - MethodologySnorkelingSnorkelingAcoustic tracking
Distribution and Habitat use of Juvenile Chinook Salmon in Nearshore Areas of Lakes in Western Washington
Landsburg DamLake Washington BasinLake SammamishBear CreekIssaquah CreekCedarFallsChinook Hatcheries
Cedar River Chinook OutmigrationMigrationJan Feb Mar AprMayJun JulMigration of juvenile Chinook out of the Cedar River and into Lake Washington; based on WDFW fry/smolt traps at the mouth
Juvenile Chinook groups•Lake Washington–Cedar River fry - early migrants–Cedar River pre-smolts –late migrants–Bear Creek fry –early migrants–Bear Creek pre-smolts –late migrants–Issaquah Creek pre-smolts (hatchery and wild)•Lake Sammamish–Issaquah Creek fry –early migrants–Isaquah Creek pre-smolts (hatchery and wild)
Littoral zone Pelagic zoneLittoral zone Pelagic zoneFebruary-AprilMay-JuneJuvenile ChinookFresh et al. 1999-2000, WDFWLake Washington
Outline•Depth selection•Distribution•Substrate use•Overwater structures and armoring•Woody debris •Emergent and overhanging vegetation•Artificial lighting•Non-natal tributaries
Water columndepthDepth distribution
South Lake WashingtonNight snorkeling/scuba diving: 0–3 m deepMean length (mm) = 43 50 92abcN = 31 40 460.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.80March 10 April 7 May 12Mean depth (m)
South Lake WashingtonDawn surface feeding activityDepth category (m)00.20.40.60.81FMAMMFeb Mar Apr May JunSelectivity (α) 0-0.50.5-11-22-33-44-5
Chinook distribution South Lake Washington - night snorkelingFebruary 4 –May 27, 2003y = -0.14Ln(x) + 0.36R2 = 0.8100.20.40.60 5 10 15 20Shoreline distance to Cedar River (km)Chinook / m2
Chinook Salmon Nursery AreasFebruary to mid MayBear Creek ChinookCedar River Chinook
South Lake WashingtonVariables include:•Substrate use•Use of armored shorelines•Use of overwater structures
Substrate selectionNight00.10.20.30.40.50.6Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder BulkheadFeb-March, N = 127April-May, N = 360Day00.10.20.30.40.50.6Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder BulkheadMarch, N = 25Selectivity ( α )
Shoreline ArmoringNight00.20.40.60.81Rip rap Bulkhead No armorFeb-March, N = 127April-May, N = 360Day00.20.40.60.81Rip rap Bulkhead No armorMarch, N = 25Selectivity ( α )
Overwater StructuresDay00.20.40.60.81OWS - under OWS - within 5 m OpenMarch, N = 25Night00.20.40.60.8OWS - under OWS - within 5 m OpenFeb-March, N = 127April-May, N = 360Selectivity ( α )
March0204060801001202003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Year# Chinook / 100 mcontrolrestorationRainier Beach Restoration SiteMarina and rip rap replaced with gravel beachNight snorkel countsPre-restoration Post-restoration
Seward Park Restoration SitesSubstrate replacementN
SWD and OHV ExperimentNatural overhanging vegetation (OHV) with small woody debris (SWD)
04080120160SWD/OHVSWDOpen# of ChinookDay, n = 10Night, n = 3SWD and OHV Experiment020406080100SWD/OHVSWDOpen# of ChinookDay, n = 7Night, n = 4late March-early AprilMay
Juvenile Chinook under OHV
Lake Quinault –Habitat UseEmergent VegetationLarge Woody Debris
aLake Quinault resultsApril 2003ababbc00.511.52Chinook / m 2
051015202530354045Control areas Lighted areasNumber of ChinookArtificial Lighting ExperimentFebruary 23, 2005Mean length –49 mm FL0.2 –0.3 luxMean: 5 –10 luxMax: 80 –100 lux
Non-natal tributariesLaughing Jacobs CreekGene Coulon ParkKennydale Creek
DeltaConvergence PoolLakereference siteStream habitat-South Lake Washington-North Lake Washington-South Lake SammamishNon-natal tributaries
Non-natal TributariesLake Washington and Lake Sammamish00.10.20.30.40.50.6123456789101112Small tribs (< 2 cfs)Large tribs (> 2 cfs)Chinook / mTributaryMarch-AprilMayJune
Chinook Abundance in Johns CreekLower 260 m200320040100200300400500600700Number of Chinook Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Johns Creek•Close to Cedar River•Low gradient •Small to medium-sized•Few other fish present
00.20.40.60.811.212345678TributaryChinook / m2LakeshoreDeltaNon-natal Tributary DeltasLake Washington and Lake SammamishJune
020406080100Baseline Rain event Baseline Rain eventLakeshore Bryn Mawr trib.PercentOtherOligochaetesChironomidsNon-natal Tributary DeltasRain events01020304050May Creek Taylor Creek Bryn MawrtributaryNumber of ChinookBase flowHigh flowAbundanceDiet
SummaryNon-armored, open sandy beach (Day and night habitat)Woody debris and Overhanging vegetation(Day habitat)•Juvenile Chinook inhabit shallow waters in the south end of Lake Washington
•Juvenile Chinook appear to be attracted to artificial lighting which may increase predation risk•Non-natal tributaries can provide valuable habitat for juvenile Chinook Summary
13
1
2
3
3
cont.
4
5
5
cont.
6
7
7
cont.
8
9
10
10
cont.
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 6-1 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Chapter 6
Coordination and Consultation with Agencies and Tribes
The City of Renton (City) initiated consultation with agencies and tribes regarding permit requirements and to identify any areas of concerns regarding the Sunset Terrace public housing redevelopment as well as the overall Planned Action. Correspondence includes the following found in Appendix J of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS):
letter regarding potential Area of Potential Effects to the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, September 1, 2010;
email and letter from DAHP, dated November 18, 2010, concurring with Cultural Resources Survey Report conclusions on eligibility; and
letter from DAHP concurring with conclusions of no adverse impacts, dated November 30, 2010. In addition, the City initiated the following consultation with agencies and tribes on three particular sites within the study area that may be locations for replacement housing for Sunset Terrace or other RHA activities as part of the Preferred Alternative (Final EIS Appendix F):
letter requesting consultation along with technical report, February 18, 2011; and
correspondence from DAHP, dated February 24, 2011, concurring with Cultural Resources Survey Report conclusions on eligibility and no adverse impacts. Consistent with the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the proposal has been evaluated with respect to its potential effects on species listed or proposed for listing under the ESA. A biological assessment has been prepared and submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service for its concurrence with a finding that the proposal may affect, and is not likely to adversely affect, anadromous fish protected under the ESA, and would have no effect on any ESA-protected species under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction. Other federal and state agencies were also notified of comment opportunities through the scoping process identified in Draft EIS Appendix A and were offered comment opportunity on the Draft EIS (see Draft EIS Chapter 7 and Final EIS Chapter 8 for the distribution list).
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 7-1 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Chapter 7
List of Preparers
This section lists the names, expertise, experience, and professional disciplines of the persons who were primarily responsible for preparing the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements including technical reports in the appendices. Name Education Expertise, Experience, and Professional Disciplines Atchison, Dustin MS, Water Resources Engineering, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2004 BS, Civil Engineering, University of Washington, 1997
Role: drainage master plan; water resources analysis lead Experience: 13 years Professional disciplines: civil engineering, water resources, stormwater, low-impact development, stream restoration Cerise, Gilbert MPA, Public Administration, Columbia University, 1994 BA, Political Science, University of Washington, 1991
Role: land use and public services analysis Experience: 15 years Professional disciplines: land use planning, environmental documentation Chang, Rachel MS, Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, 1991 BS, Biomedical Engineering, University of Southern California, 1989
Role: environmental health analysis Experience: 19 years Professional disciplines: hazardous materials, environmental engineering Chung, Raymond BS, Civil Engineering, University of Washington, 1997 Role: drainage master plan; water resources analysis Experience: 13 years Professional discipline: water resources Dawson, Karen Degrees from Oregon State University: MS, Civil Engineering, 1990 BS, Civil Engineering, 1986 BS, Forest Engineering, 1986
Role: earth analysis Experience: 20 years Professional discipline: geotechnical Earle, Christopher PhD, Forest Ecology, University of Washington, 1993 MS, Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, 1986 BA, Biology and Geology, Whitman College, 1978
Role: plants and animals analysis Experience: 17 years Professional disciplines: ESA issues, watershed analysis, water quality, and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem evaluation and restoration Elder, J. Tait MA, Archaeology, Portland State University, 2010 BA, Anthropology with a Minor in Geology, Western Washington University, 2004
Role: principal investigator for archaeology Experience: 5 years Professional discipline: prehistoric archaeologist
City of Renton
Chapter 7. List of Preparers
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 7-2 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Name Education Expertise, Experience, and Professional Disciplines Evanoff, Kristina MS, Engineering, University of Washington, 2006 BS, Geography, University of Utah, 2000 BS, Environmental Studies, University of Utah, 2000
Role: parks and recreation analysis Experience: 8 years Professional disciplines: transit and transportation planning, public involvement, environmental documentation, and GIS Gifford, Kevin MUP, Urban Planning, Texas A&M University, 2006 Bachelor of Environmental Design, Texas A&M University, 2004
Role: aesthetics analysis, GIS mapping Experience: 5 years Professional disciplines: land use planning, urban design, environmental permitting Grueter, Lisa MCP, City Planning, University of California, Berkeley, 1990 BA, Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine, 1987
Role: EIS lead, housing Experience: 23 years Professional disciplines: land use planning, environmental documentation Henke, Jennifer MS, Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, 1997 BS Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, 1995
Role: utilities analysis Experience: 13 years Professional disciplines: water supply and treatment, hydraulic modeling and analysis Hetzel, Christopher MA, Public History and Historic Preservation, Middle Tennessee State University, 1998 BA, History, Washington University, St. Louis—Minors in Archaeology and Art History, 1994
Role: cultural resources lead, historic resources analysis Experience: 14 years Professional disciplines: historic preservation, architectural history, and preservation planning Kuo, Kai-Ling MS, Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 2001 BS, Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, 1998
Role: air quality, energy, and noise analyses Experience: 8 years Professional disciplines: air and noise engineer, transportation planner Mason, Roger AAS, Applied Science, Boise State University 1976 Role: project manager, transportation engineer Experience: 27 years Professional disciplines: Professional engineer McKenzie, John BS, Civil Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1991 Role: SR 900 design; transportation analysis Experience: 18 years Professional disciplines: transportation engineering, site civil engineering, channelization, urban corridors, access management, sustainable practices in roadway engineering, cost estimating
City of Renton
Chapter 7. List of Preparers
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 7-3 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Name Education Expertise, Experience, and Professional Disciplines Petersen, Gene BA, Urban Planning, University of Washington, 1975 BA, Sociology, University of Washington, 1976
Role: utilities peer review, parks and recreation peer review Experience: 35 years Professional disciplines: SEPA/NEPA, environmental planning, resource planning, infrastructure planning Rodland, Rob BA, Geography, University of Washington, 2000 Role: socioeconomics and environmental justice analysis Experience: 10 years Professional disciplines: land use, social, environmental justice Wilder, Jim MS, Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, 1981 BS, Civil Engineering, University of California, Davis, 1975
Role: peer review air quality, energy, and noise analysis Experience: 35 years Professional discipline: environmental/air and noise engineer Yuen, Terry BS, Civil Engineering, University of Washington, 1998 Role: transportation analysis Experience: 11 years Professional discipline: professional engineer
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 8-1 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Chapter 8
Distribution List
The notice of availability for this Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was provided to the following agencies and individuals. Agencies indicated with an asterisk (*) were provided a paper or electronic copy of the Final EIS.
8.1 Federal, State, Tribal, Regional, County and City
Agencies
8.1.1 Federal Agencies Advisory Council on Historic Preservation* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers* U.S. Department of Interior* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service* U.S. Housing and Urban Development*
8.1.2 State of Washington Agencies Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Department of Commerce* Department of Corrections* Department of Ecology* Department of Fish and Wildlife* Department of Health, Environmental Health* Department of Natural Resources* Department of Social and Health Services* Department of Transportation, Northwest Region* Governor Chris Gregoire*
City of Renton
Chapter 8. Distribution List
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 8-2 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Parks and Recreation Commission* Puget Sound Partnership* Recreation and Conservation Office*
8.1.3 Tribal Duwamish Tribal Office Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program*
8.1.4 Regional Puget Sound Clean Air Agency* Puget Sound Regional Council*
8.1.5 Counties King County Development & Environmental Services King County Wastewater Treatment Division* King County Library System* Seattle–King County Public Health*
8.1.6 Cities City of Newcastle City of Kent City of Tukwila
8.1.7 Local Agencies Renton Housing Authority* Renton Historical Society
8.2 Special Districts, Transportation, and Utilities Renton School District* Metro Transit* Seattle Public Utilities
City of Renton
Chapter 8. Distribution List
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 8-3 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Puget Sound Energy* Sound Transit*
8.3 Newspapers
Renton Reporter
Seattle Times
8.4 Residents and Property Owners The City of Renton (City) published a notice of availability of the Draft EIS in the Renton Reporter. In addition, the City notified its interested parties list, which includes participants in the scoping meeting as well as those who responded to the scoping postcard. Notices of availability have been posted throughout the Sunset Area Community, including at major intersections, in community buildings, and in commercial areas. The notice of availability of the Final EIS was sent to the same mailing list, including any Draft EIS commenters (see Chapter 5). Copies of the Draft and Final EIS have been made available for public review at the following locations: Renton Public Library (both Downtown and Highlands branches), Renton Housing Authority, Renton City Hall, and the City’s website (as described on the Fact Sheet).
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 9-1 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Chapter 9
References and Acronyms
9.1 References
9.1.1 Chapter 1 City of Renton. 2010a. City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. February. Appendix D, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Standards.
———. 2010b. Docket #53 Staff Report. September 29.
———. 2009a. Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan. May
———. 2009b. Long Range Wastewater Management Plan. January. King County. 2009. Draft 2009 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Seattle, WA. Prepared by King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. NW Energy Start Homes Program. Available: <http://www.northwestenergystar.com/>. Accessed: October 15, 2010. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2008. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
Implementation Working Group: Report to the Climate Action Team. Appendix G. SEPA Mitigation Strategies for Climate Change Impacts
9.1.2 Chapter 2
Printed References City of Renton. 2010a. Renton Highlands (Sunset Area). Available: <http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=2768>. Accessed: September 20, 2010.
———. 2010b. Adopted Budget. 2010 Capital Investment Program: 2010 through 2015. Available: <http://rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Government/FIS/FinancialDocuments/Budget/2010AdoptedBudget.pdf>. Accessed: September 20, 2010.
———. 2010c. Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual.
———. 2009a. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 9: Land Use Element. Adopted November 1, 2004. Ordinance 5099 & 5100. Amended December 8, 2008. Renton, WA.
———. 2009b. Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy. November 18, 2009. Prepared by Mithun, Inc. on behalf of the City of Renton Community and Economic Development Department.
———. 2009c. Highlands Action Plan. February.
———. 2009d. Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan. May
City of Renton
Chapter 9. References and Acronyms
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 9-2 April 2011
ICF 593.10
———. 2008a. Report and Recommendations: Highlands Phase II Task Force. December. Adopted by Renton City Council in 2009. Available: <http://www.rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=10946>. Accessed: September 20, 2010.
———. 2008b. Economic Equality and Housing Briefing: Answers to Preliminary Briefing Questions. Highlands Phase II Task Force. July 2. Available: <http://www.rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Business/EDNSP/planning/Highlands%20Economic%20Equality%20Study%20Questions%20web%20draft.pdf>. Accessed: September 20, 2010.
———. 2008c. Business Area Study Session: Answers to Preliminary Study Questions. Highlands Phase II Task Force. August 20, 2008. Available: <http://www.rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Business/EDNSP/planning/Business%20Areas%20Study%20Questions.pdf> Accessed: September 20, 2010.
———. 2006. Report and Recommendation of the Highlands Area Citizen’s Zoning Task Force. November. Adopted by Renton City Council in May 2007. City of Renton and Renton Housing Authority. 2009. Highlands Redevelopment: Presentation to the City of Renton. April 7. King County. 2009. King County Surface Water Design Manual. Updated September 13, 2010. Available: <http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/waterandland/stormwater/documents/surface-water-design-manual.aspx>. Accessed: September 15, 2010. Renton Housing Authority. 2010a. Welcome to the Renton Housing Authority. Available: <http://www.rentonhousing.org/>. Last updated: September 18, 2010. Accessed: September 20, 2010.
———. 2010b. RHA Communities Waitlists. Available: <http://www.rentonhousing.org/RHA%20Communities%20Waitlists.pdf> Accessed: September 20, 2010.
———. 2010c. Tenant Demographic Data Report: Housing Authority, City of Renton. September 22. Renton, WA. Renton School District and Greene Gasaway Architects. 2008. Renton School District Six-Year Capital
Facilities Plan, 2009–2015. Renton, WA. Prepared for Renton School District, Renton, WA.
Personal Communications Gropper, Mark. Executive Director. Renton Housing Authority, Renton, Washington. September 17, 2010—email regarding Sunset Terrace income to Lisa Grueter, ICF International.
City of Renton
Chapter 9. References and Acronyms
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 9-3 April 2011
ICF 593.10
9.1.3 Chapter 3 City of Renton. 2010. Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Gersib, R., B. Haddaway, T. Hilliard, E. Molash, J. Park, A. Perez, R. Schanz, and V. Stone. 2004.
Enhancing Transportation Project Delivery through Watershed Characterization, I-405 Case Study. WSDOT Urban Corridors Office, Seattle, WA. King County. 2009. King County Washington, Surface Water Design Manual. Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle, WA. Puget Sound Regional Council. 2010. Covered Employment Estimates. Available: <http://www.psrc.org/data/employment/covered-emp>. Accessed: September 15, 2010.
———. 2009. Vision 2040. December. Available: <http://psrc.org/growth/vision2040/pub/vision2040-document>. Accessed November 27, 2010. Tabor, R. A., H. A. Gearns, C. M. McCoy III and S. Camacho. 2006. Nearshore Habitat Use by Juvenile
Chinook Salmon in Lentic Systems of the Lake Washington Basin. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, WA. Worthy and Associates. 2009. Renton Urban and Community Forestry Redevelopment Plan. Seattle, WA. Prepared for City of Renton, WA.
9.1.4 Chapter 4 Gersib, R., B. Haddaway, T. Hilliard, E. Molash, J. Park, A. Perez, R. Schanz, and V. Stone. 2004.
Enhancing Transportation Project Delivery through Watershed Characterization, I-405 Case Study. WSDOT Urban Corridors Office, Seattle, WA. King County. 2010. Metro Transit. Available: <http://metro.kingcounty.gov>. Accessed: October 2010.
———. 2009. King County Washington, Surface Water Design Manual. Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle, WA. King County and City of Renton. 2001. Final Adopted May Creek Basin Action Plan. April. Updated September 14, 2010. Available: <http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/watersheds/cedar-river-lake-wa/may-creek/may-creek-basin-plan.aspx>. Accessed: September 15, 2010. StreamNet. 2010. Results of a database search for fish occurrence in May Creek and Honey Creek, King County, Washington. Available: <http://www.streamnet.org>. Accessed: September 15, 2010. Tabor, R. A., H. A. Gearns, C. M. McCoy III and S. Camacho. 2006. Nearshore Habitat Use by Juvenile
Chinook Salmon in Lentic Systems of the Lake Washington Basin. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, WA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. National Wetlands Inventory. Available: <http://www.fws.gov/wetlands>. Last updated: November 3, 2010. Accessed; November 8, 2010.
City of Renton
Chapter 9. References and Acronyms
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 9-4 April 2011
ICF 593.10
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010b. Salmonscape database. Electronic online database files detailing salmon occurrence in Washington State. Available: <http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape>. Accessed: November 8, 2010.
9.1.5 Chapter 5
Printed References Book, Ed, and Richard Schneider. 2010. Crime prevention through environmental design: DPTED 40 years later. The Police Chief LXXVII(1). Association of Chiefs of Police, Alexandria, VA. Available: <http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1987&issue_id=12010>. Freedman, Matthew, and Emily Owens. 2010. “Low-Income Housing Development and Crime” in The
Selected Works of Matthew Freedman. Available at: <http://works.bepress.com/matthew_ freedman/12>. King County Library System. 2010. Draft 2010 Library Service Area Analysis Greater Renton Area. September.
Personal Communications Gropper, Mark. Executive Director. Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. February 22, 2011—email to Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner, ICF International, regarding Citizen Comments related to Edmonds-Glenwood. Sullivan, Arthur. February 2, 2011—teleconference with Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner, ICF International.
9.1.6 Chapter 6 No references
9.1.7 Chapter 7 No references
9.1.8 Chapter 8 No references
City of Renton Chapter 9. References and Acronyms
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 9‐5 April 2011
ICF 593.10
9.2 Acronyms ACM asbestos‐containing materials ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADD average daily demand ARCH A Regional Coalition for Housing AWSC all‐way stop control BMPs best management practices Btu British thermal unit CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIS Community Investment Strategy City City of Renton CN Center Neighborhood CV Center Village DAHP Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation DART Dial‐a‐Ride‐Transit du/acre dwelling units per acre Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EIS environmental impact statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FTEs full‐time equivalents GHG greenhouse gas HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development LID Low Impact Development LOS level of service MTCA Model Toxics Control Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NOI Notice of Intent NRHP National Register of Historic Places OWSC one‐way stop control PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls PDD peak daily demand PSCAA Puget Sound Clean Air Agency R‐10 Residential 10 R‐14 Residential 14 R‐8 Residential 8 RCW Revised Code of Washington RHA Renton Housing Authority RMC Renton Municipal Code RM‐F Residential Multifamily RS Residential Single Family SEPA State Environmental Policy Act
City of Renton
Chapter 9. References and Acronyms
Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 9-6 April 2011
ICF 593.10
SR State Route SRI Shelter Resources, Inc. STC sound transmission class TOD transit-oriented development USC United States Code UST underground storage tank VMC Valley Medical Center VMT vehicle miles travelled WAC Washington Administrative Code WHR Washington Heritage Register WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation